MORE THAN MAKING CONNECTIONS: A MID-LEVEL COORDINATING ACTOR’S ROLE WITHIN THE TANZANIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD SYSTEM By Jessica Marie Landgraf A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Educational Policy—Doctor of Philosophy 2020 ABSTRACT By Jessica Marie Landgraf MORE THAN MAKING CONNECTIONS: A MID-LEVEL COORDINATING ACTOR’S ROLE WITHIN THE TANZANIAN EARLY CHILDHOOD SYSTEM The ability of countries to meet the needs of young children is affected heavily by a persistent challenge confronting the early childhood education and development (ECED) efforts: coordination. Because ECED cuts across so many different sectors, policies and programs are overseen by several different ministries, implemented by a range of governmental and non- governmental actors, and enacted in a wide variety of contexts. As a result, coordination of ECED systems is challenging. The splintered nature of the ECED field calls for special attention to how diverse actors work together to accomplish goals, manage problems, and coordinate ECED policies and programs. Such coordination would capitalize on shared knowledge and experience, increase efficiency by eliminating duplication of efforts, and utilize skills from a broad range of ECED stakeholders to provide better developmental support for children and their families, ultimately improving outcomes for all young children. This study looks at a mid-level coordinating actor, ECNetwork, within the Tanzanian early childhood education and development system in order to understand the complicated work of coordination within a complex system. Because coordination at the mid-level has been reported as a common area of weakness in many ECED systems around the world, understanding coordination at this level is particularly important. My research was guided by two research questions: How does ECNetwork use their position as MLCA to coordinate the Tanzanian ECED system? and, What roles, competencies, or skills does ECNetwork utilize to increase the coordination of the Tanzanian ECED system? I adopted a case study design (Stake, 1995) comprised of observations, interviews, and document analysis. Observations took place at the office of my focal organization, ECNetwork, as well as at events and meetings ECNetwork personnel attended during my time in the field. I conducted 31 formal interviews with ECNetwork administrators and ECED system stakeholders they interacted with. I analyzed national and international policy documents, meeting reports, organizational documents, and program reports in order to understand the context ECNetwork works to coordinate and the written representations of activities they host and participate in. There are two analysis chapters in this dissertation. The first utilizes Williams’ (2011) framework for boundary spanning entities in order to describe and conceptualize the roles and competencies involved in the coordination work that ECNetwork performs as a MLCA. The second, adds to the understanding of how ECNetwork coordinates the current ECED system by exploring how it engages in advocacy as a way to influence the shape of the system. In the present global ECED context where attention is directed towards addressing issues holistically and through integration of policies, programs, and services it is critical that we understand what coordination and integration entails from an on the ground perspective. This dissertation attempts to uncover the dynamic capacities that MLCAs need to develop in order to increase the coordination of a country’s ECED system. My study of ECNetwork documents the organization’s work over seven weeks and details how their coordination work formed networks and relationships, developed lines of communication, created common understanding, influenced policies and programs, and integrated efforts of all ECED system stakeholders towards improved outcomes for their country’s youngest citizens. Copyright by JESSICA MARIE LANDGRAF 2020 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Being on the other side of the dissertation process calls for reflection and recognition of the relationships and support systems that helped me reach this point. First and foremost, this dissertation would not have been possible without the generous participation of the administrators from ECNetwork. Each of you welcomed me openly into your work and made my fieldwork both fruitful and enjoyable. I am blessed to have known each of you. Additionally, many thanks to the government representatives who participated in my study. Your genuine interest in my research and your personal aspirations for Tanzania’s children warmed my heart. To all of my interview participants and those I observed, you are inspiring. The work that I do, I do for you and all the children you support. I am grateful to the College of Education and Graduate school at Michigan State University, and the Claffey Meyer International Award through MSU’s International Studies and Programs Endowed Scholarships for the funding that made my research possible. Many individuals at MSU have supported my PhD journey. My advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. Lynn Paine, you will never truly know how much your support and critical feedback has meant to me. Your dedication to my growth as a researcher, scholar, and mentor carried me through difficulties along the way and gave me confidence to keep moving forward. My dissertation committee members Dr. Amita Chudgar, Dr. Amy Parks, and Dr. Bethany Wilinski have helped me to refine my thinking and pushed me beyond my comfort zone. I especially want to thank Dr. Bethany Wilinski for helping me to develop my field research and analysis skills as well as encouraging me to learn Kiswahili. To Dr. Ngonyani and Dr. Choti who taught me Kiswahili, I have never enjoyed learning a language more. Your instruction facilitated my ability v to live and work during field research and form relationships with the wonderful people I met along the way. To Dr. Sedlak, you were the first impression I got of MSU, and I immediately felt welcome. Your encouragement and confidence in me helped me to grow as a scholar and mentor; thank you for believing in me. There are so many people in the college of education that have helped me to grow as a scholar and individual. To all of the cohorts of Educational Policy PhDs, your friendship and comradery have made these past five years anything but lonely. Not having a ‘real’ office allowed my ‘office’ in the grad lounge to become a gathering place for both work and friendship. To Joni Burns, for always having a smile on your face when I stopped by your office. Your advice and assistance in navigating the bureaucracy saved me a lot of stress. To the women from my past and present who have helped to shape my future. Lisa, Lakshmi, and Tammy, you recognized my potential and ambition as I held your babies. The encouragement, support, and friendly ears have given me confidence. As strong women, mothers, and academics, your examples will continue to guide me as I move along my own path. To your children, Meena, Audrey, Paul, Timmy, Louie, and Lucy, watching you all grow and flourish has been one of the greatest gifts of my life. To the families and staff at Gretchen’s House Child Development Center, thank you for your examples as teachers, leaders, and advocates. To my former colleagues, especially Denise, Megan, Sandra, Tina, Julie, Deb, and Chrissy, thank you for your companionship and guidance in the classroom. To my friends. This has not been an easy journey, but it was made easier because of each of you. Rachel and Michelle, what would I do without you two?! Our weekly debriefings and writing groups made the long hours of job applications and writing a little less painful. In these vi final few months of writing, our marathon Zoom sessions made quarantine more bearable. Laura and Zheng, thanks for being accountability buddies with me and for countless celebratory dinners. Hilary, I am so lucky to have had you with me through this. Cousin Sundays were the highlight of my week. Finally, to my family, who have seen me through so much. I dedicate this dissertation to you. David, WUB. We have developed our own form of communication through memes and animal videos. Thank you for always checking in and keeping me laughing. Mom and Dad, the hours I have spent on the phone with you whether to celebrate good news, commiserate about bad news, or just pass the time have been my lifeline. FIRM EMBRACE! Your love and support continues to fuel my ambition and gives me the courage to explore the world. vii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... xi KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... xii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................... 7 Study Significance ........................................................................................................ 16 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................... 19 FRAMING THE STUDY & TANZANIAN ECED CONTEXT ............................................ 19 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 19 Factors Shaping ECED Systems and Policies .................................................................... 22 International Agendas ................................................................................................... 22 The ECED System in Tanzania ..................................................................................... 29 Context of the Case Study ................................................................................................. 39 Context of Focal Organization ....................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 51 STUDY DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 51 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 51 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 51 Case Study Methodology .............................................................................................. 52 Prior Research ............................................................................................................... 54 Setting the Scene ........................................................................................................... 55 Methods of Generating Data.......................................................................................... 61 Positionality .................................................................................................................. 70 Limitations .................................................................................................................... 78 Analyzing data .............................................................................................................. 80 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 87 MORE THAN COORDINATION ........................................................................................ 87 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 87 Complicating Coordination ........................................................................................... 90 MLCA Roles and Competencies ....................................................................................... 93 More than Making Connections: The Role of Reticulist ................................................ 94 More than New Ideas: The Role of Entrepreneur ......................................................... 119 viii More than Getting to Know You: The Role of Interpreter ............................................ 124 More than Planning Meetings: The Role of Organizer ................................................. 133 What Isn’t Going On ................................................................................................... 137 Evolution of the MLCA .............................................................................................. 140 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 142 CHAPTER 5 ......................................................................................................................... 145 ADVOCACY: MORE THAN PUSHING SOMETHING FORWARD ............................... 145 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 145 ECNetwork as Advocate ................................................................................................. 146 Factors Impacting Opportunities for Advocacy ........................................................... 147 Positioning ECNetwork as an Advocacy Actor ............................................................... 152 Advocacy Actors ......................................................................................................... 152 Advocacy Strategies and Tactics ................................................................................. 159 Phases of the Policy Advocacy Process ....................................................................... 162 ECNetwork’s Involvement in the Policy Making Process ............................................ 163 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 176 CHAPTER 6 ......................................................................................................................... 178 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ........................................................................... 178 Review of Chapters ......................................................................................................... 179 More Than…: Promoting a Complex View of Coordination ............................................ 181 Coordination Capacity................................................................................................. 182 Implications for Research and Policy .............................................................................. 188 Mechanisms for Coordination of ECED systems ......................................................... 188 Nonprofit Advocacy .................................................................................................... 189 Conceptualizations of Mid-Level Coordination ........................................................... 190 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 193 APPENDIX A: Interview Consent Form ......................................................................... 194 APPENDIX B: Interview Protocols ................................................................................. 196 APPENDIX C: Observation Protocol .............................................................................. 198 APPENDIX D: Observation Table ................................................................................... 199 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 200 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Number of Interviews by Interview Participant Type……...……………………61 Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: MLCA Roles and Competencies Currently…………………...…………….….138 Enacted by ECNetwork (Adapted from Williams 2011, pg. 28) Comparison of William’s Boundary Spanner Competencies…………..………162 and Cullerton’s Framework of Tactics Resource-poor Organizations Can Use to Impact the Policy-making Process Phases of Influencing Policy-making (Jenkins, 2006, pg. 321) ……………..…163 Field Research Observations……………………………………………………199 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Government and Non-State Actor Hierarchies……………….…………….……48 Figure 2: ECNetwork as the Bridge Between Government and Non-State Actors………...49 xi KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AfECN African Early Childhood Network BSE CBO CDP CSO ECED FBO GNP IECDP IECP IMF LMIC MDG MLCA Boundary Spanning Entity Community Based Organization Child Development Policy Civil Society Organization Early Childhood Education and Development Faith Based Organization Gross National Product Intersectoral Early Childhood Development Policy Integrated Early Childhood Policy International Monetary Fund Low- and Middle-Income Country Millennium Development Goals Mid-Level Coordinating Actor MoHCDGEC Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, & Children NaCONGO National Council for Non-Governmental Organizations NCF NGO Nurturing Care Framework Non-Governmental Organization NMNAP National Multisectoral Nutrition Action Plan NPA-VAWC National Plan of Action for Violence Against Women and Children NSGRP National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty xii PMO Prime Minister’s Office PO-RALG President’s Office of Regional Administration and Local Governance SAP SDG SSA Structural Adjustment Policy Sustainable Development Goals Sub-Saharan Africa USAID United States Agency for International Development xiii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW Introduction Early childhood education and development (ECED) has increasingly become the focus of global attention. For both nations and individuals, participating in quality ECED offers developmental, health, and economic benefits. The growing research supporting ECED’s impact has turned heads internationally and countries have begun to try to gain these benefits through public policy (Britto, Yoshikawa, & Boller, 2011). This consensus has been solidified in several recent events and documents. For example, in a recent policy brief published from the 2019 T20 conference in Japan, Urban et al wrote: Early Childhood Development, Education and Care (ECD/ECEC) has become a policy priority for governments and international bodies. There is a broad consensus between policy makers, ECD/ECEC professionals, scholars, and advocates on the importance of ECD/ECEC as effective means to ensure individual and collective well-being and achievement, and to addressing wider societal issues including social cohesion, equality and inclusion, and persistent intergenerational cycles of poverty (Urban, Cardini, Guevara, Okengo, & Romero, 2019, pg. 2). This brief highlighted the multi-actor agreement on the importance of ECED, while at the same time, reiterating the struggle of many countries to overcome the difficulty of addressing multi-sectoral issues because “fragmentation at all levels of the ECD/ECEC system remains a major challenge [as] policies for the ‘care’ and ‘education’ of young children have often developed separately” (pg. 5). 1 Despite great progress made by individual actors in improving child well-being, 43% of children under five in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are still in danger of not reaching their developmental potential (Black et al., 2017). The factors that impact a child’s ability to reach this potential are spread across areas of health, nutrition, security and safety, responsive caregiving, and early learning. A country’s ability to meet the needs of young children is affected significantly by a persistent challenge confronting the early childhood education and development (ECED) efforts: coordination. Because ECED cuts across many different sectors, coordination of policies and programs is a challenge. As a result, policies and programs are overseen by several different ministries or government departments, implemented by a range of governmental and non-governmental actors, and enacted in a wide variety of contexts. The splintered nature of the ECED field calls for special attention to how diverse actors work together to accomplish goals, manage problems, and increase coordination among stakeholders within ECED. Such coordination would capitalize on shared knowledge and experience, increase efficiency by eliminating duplication of efforts, and utilize skills from a broad range of ECED stakeholders to provide better developmental support for children and their families, ultimately improving outcomes for all young children. To begin addressing ECED issues holistically, recent scholarship has proposed that ECED be thought of as a system in order to better conceptualize its complex make-up (Britto et al., 2013; Bruner, 2012; Kagan (Ed.), 2018; Kagan, Araujo, Jaimovich, & Cruz Aguayo, 2015; Pérez-Escamilla, Cavallera, Tomlinson, & Dua, 2017; Vargas-Barón, 2013). Within this approach, systems are understood to be “a set of connected elements, forming a complex unit with some overall purpose, goal, or function that is achieved only through the actions and interactions of all the elements” (Bruner, Stover-Wright, Gebhard, & Hibbard, 2004, pg. 4). 2 While the move to approaching ECED as a system was done to alleviate challenges, it has uncovered new issues which need to be addressed: This ‘systemic turn’ has created new challenges. Education, primary healthcare, nutrition, children’s rights, social cohesion, equality and other aspects that contribute to the [ECED] system are often grounded in different, and not necessarily matching, conceptualizations, understandings, terminologies and accepted practices. Bringing them together in a Competent System requires coordinated approaches to governance, resourcing, professional preparation, and evaluation that embrace complexity (Urban, Cardini, & Romero, 2018, pg. 3). In order to bring together the multiple sectors that provide ECED services and govern them, common understandings, integration of efforts, consolidation of resources, and new lines of communication must be established. Beyond written policy and guidelines, a system functions effectively because of coordinated actors and efforts. This need for coordination has been highlighted by Britto et al (2013) as a crucial element to the success of an ECED system: Because [ECED] requires the integration of services to achieve holistic child outcomes across survival, health, nutrition, growth, learning, development, protection and participation, the coordination function of governance is vital (Britto et al., 2013, pg. 10). Imagining the number of sectors involved in ECED and the number of actors which make up those sectors—from national government to implementing organizations on the ground— illuminates the complexity that exists for coordination not only at the policy level, but throughout every aspect of the system. This view of coordination highlights the need for an 3 attentive human organizational element, which is committed to responding to the perpetual shifts in the ECED system and adapting the coordination response to them in kind. The wide range of levels and types of stakeholders needing connecting—in the middle— positions the actors that bridge between them as mid-level coordinating actors (MLCAs). Regardless of the policy context, learning about mechanisms used for integration and coordination within ECED systems is important to supporting their growth and sustainability (Urban et al., 2018). In order to address the mid-level coordination deficiencies many ECED systems have, studies focused on understanding this type of mid-level actor and their work are needed. MLCAs coordinate stakeholders and system elements at various levels: from government to on the ground implementation and between actors at the same level (ministry to ministry, local implementor to local implementor, etc.). System efforts are informed by policies, politics, and socio-cultural characteristics that shape the delivery of services and programs, as well as regulations put in place to ensure quality (Roberts, Hsiao, Berman, & Reich, 2008). Because of these contextual factors, who takes on the title of MLCA in different ECED systems may change, but the roles that they play are crucial to the overall system function. While some countries have identified and formally built a MLCA into their ECED system, many have not formally identified such an actor. Therefore, it is important to build a deep understanding of how an MLCA coordinates between the multiple sectors and actors within an ECED system, so that countries might identify, create, or strengthen the capacity of such an actor within their existing ECED system. Literature discussing MLCAs in ECED systems describes the work that they do and their main purpose as coordination. This term is commonly used as the main descriptor of a MLCA’s work within an ECED system, but it does little to assist in a more complex understanding of 4 what roles and competencies are involved in coordination. There is a need for more detailed study of what is involved in the performance of coordination if countries are to include this type of coordinating actor in their ECED system planning. To begin building a more complex understanding of coordination facilitated by an ECED system MLCA, this dissertation study looks at ECNetwork* within the context of the Tanzania. ECNetwork has been recognized by the government as the coordinator of all non-state actors involved in ECED in the country since the early 2000s. ECNetwork acts as an umbrella organization (Melville, 2010), of which all national and local organizations involved in ECED in Tanzania are potential members. It has been given the mandate by the Tanzanian National Government to be the point of connection between the national government and the ECED non- state actors. In this position, ECNetwork can be understood as a bridge between state and non- state actors. Because of this positioning, their recognition as a coordinating actor, and its history of involvement in the ECED system in Tanzania, I have labeled ECNetwork as an MLCA and use it as the focal actor within a case study to better understand and explore the complexity of MLCA coordination work. Tanzania provides a rich context for studying the coordination work of an MLCA for several reasons. First, the national government is early in the process of addressing multi-sectoral coordination within their ECED system. Current studies of MLCAs have been conducted after these actors have been well established. Studying ECNetwork in Tanzania when it is just beginning its work provides a unique opportunity to document the process of establishing a MLCA. Second, because many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa share Tanzania’s lack of an integrated early childhood policy (IECP)—uniting and synchronizing policies and practices in all * Names of organizations and individuals have been given pseudonyms to protect confidentiality. 5 areas of early childhood in the country—their example of how to coordinate without a policy- induced mechanism is highly useful for other countries which need to improve their ECED system coordination without the benefit of an existing integrated policy. Third, because most of the other examples of ECED systems studied are from middle- and high-income countries, the addition of a low-income country such as Tanzania provides diversity to the discussion of how countries might improve coordination, even in low-resource environments. While this case study of ECNetwork is just a snapshot of an organization over time, the timing was opportune. In late 2018 a national ECED forum was held, which brought together government officials, academics and researchers, and local, national, and international organizations working in ECED in Tanzania. This meeting marked the beginning of a process to coordinate current ECED policies and programs within the country and evaluate where gaps exist leading to the development of a national action plan. In order to begin this process, it was decided that an ECED planning team needed to be formed in order to develop a “roadmap” towards the creation the national ECED action plan. The planning team was headed by co-chairs, a government official from the main ministry in charge of ECED and an administrator from ECNetwork, the MLCA of focus. As my goal is to understand this MLCAs’ position and work within the ECED system, this moment provided a window to understand how the MLCA had been positioned in the past and discuss how they were being positioned or repositioned in the development of the roadmap and action plan. As a result of these processes, during this time period there were many meetings and interactions between ECNetwork and other ECED system stakeholders, providing ample opportunities to observe and discuss the work of coordination and investigate the organizational roles and individual competencies utilized. 6 Conceptual Framework Coordination as a Dynamic Process The concept central to the questions I ask in my dissertation research is coordination. Coordination is a broad concept which is utilized in many different ways depending on the context in which it is used. Coordination in the context of an ECED system refers to the mechanisms or ways in which sectors of government, levels of government, national policies, and main actors (government, non-state, and private) are connected for the governance of “planning and development, implementation and delivery, monitoring, finance, inspection and supervision [of ECED] services” (Britto et al., 2013, pg. 16). The ‘coordination mechanism’ under study in this research is the MLCA ECNetwork. Within organizational literature on coordination, coordinating mechanisms are described as “dynamic social practices that are under continuous construction” (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman, 2012, pg. 907), and are prone to fluctuation when adapting “to conditions of uncertainty, novelty, and change when existing ways of organizing activities are disrupted and must be accomplished in new ways” (pg. 907). Viewing coordination as a dynamic social practice, instead of a standard set of procedures, calls for increased focus and insight into the “microprocesses” of coordinating. Within this dissertation, focusing on microprocesses leads me to look in a fine-grained way at the actions and skills used in coordination work, which I conceptualize as roles and competencies. Organization as the Actor of Focus In Tanzania, ECNetwork is referred to as a social actor, much like a government department or development agency where the whole of the organization or agency is often represented by one or more individuals during meetings or in documents. The practice of 7 referring to an organization as a social actor has been established in organizational theory. King, Felin, & Whetten (2010) argue that organizations can be understood as actors if they are “attributed as capable of acting by other actors, especially by their primary stakeholders and audiences” (pg. 292), and they “have some form of intentionality that underlies decision making behavior…based on a view of the self…which guides choice and directs the behavior of the organization’s member-agents” (pg. 292). Understanding an MLCA first as an organization allows for consideration of how this case relates to current organizational theory and where it departs. Coupled with the view of coordination as a dynamic social practice, examining how this organization interacts with others in the ECED system highlights the interconnectedness they have with both state and non-state ECED actors, which impacts the ability of ECNetwork to perform their coordination work. Coordination of others by ECNetwork relies on the relationships it develops in the ECED system. In organizational theory, the shape of such relationships often is understood through resource dependence. Scott & Davis (2016) discuss how resource dependence explains how organizations manage their relationships with others. They first note that “much of what organizations do is in response to the world of other organizations that they find themselves” (pg. 233). For ECNetwork, its organizational practices therefore respond to the culture and context of the stakeholders it is coordinating. Because it has the singular mandate of coordination, they “draw on varied strategies to enhance their autonomy and pursue their interests” (Scott & Davis, 2016, pg. 233). As an organization, ECNetwork adapts their approach to coordination and responds to changes in order to achieve their purpose. Resource dependence theory highlights power, and the pursuit of it, as a third critical aspect to understanding why organizations interact with others in specific ways. Scott & Davis note that “power is important for understanding what 8 goes on inside organizations and what external actions they take” (pg. 233). How this organization acts to gain or maintain power, approaches others with similar or dissimilar power, and utilizes its power builds a more complete picture of how and why it interacts with others. However, positioning the organization as the ‘actor’ of focus does not negate the crucial importance of the individuals who comprise it. Organizational competence is generally understood to be “an organization’s internal capabilities to reach its goals” (Taatila, 2004, pg. 5). From this concept, Taatila (2004) notes that part of an organization’s competence is attributed to the competence of the individuals which form it. Further it is noted that “individuals are an important factor in organizations. They are the living energy behind lifeless organizational resources. They feel, think, organize, invent and make errors. They take chances and cause changes” (pg. 31). These individuals are a major factor in the organization’s ability to reach its goals. For ECNetwork, three individuals currently make up the staff. Understanding each of these individuals, the roles they play and the individual competencies they utilize to complete these roles, is critical to understanding how the organization reaches it coordination goal— referred to in the Tanzanian context as their mandate. In this study, because of the organization’s small staff, it was possible to observe the work of all three during the study period, offering a holistic picture of the types and range of work involved. Because of the breadth and complexity of coordination a MLCA performs in ECED systems, it is more likely to be an organization than an individual actor. Thus, it is important to focus on the organization as the actor of focus, even though the actions taken are performed by individuals within the organization. It is also essential to acknowledge that ECNetwork and MLCAs are social actors because their “status derives from the expectations of others, including the state, individual members of the organization itself, and other stakeholders and audiences 9 who monitor and hold them accountable for their actions” (King, Felin, & Whetten, 2010, pg. 292). King et al. (2010) argue that “to hold the organization accountable and responsible for its actions but to not treat it analytically as an actor is a conceptual disconnect” (pg. 292). Within this view of organization as actor, there is a clear understanding of organizational viewpoint of issues, a subjective view, which “guides and directs the behaviors of the organization’s member- agents” (pg.292). In this research I position the actions taken by individual organizational agents as directed from a shared intention and organizational mission; I look at these actions as representations collectively of the organization. I position the work of coordination and the roles utilized in its pursuit to be organizational, taken on by all individuals within the organization. The competencies, however, are enacted by individuals and may or may not all be used by any one member of the organization. This view of competencies as an individual trait matches well with research in organizational and management studies. Câmpeanu-Sonea et al. (2011) define the concept of competence as that which “essentially refers to performance” (pg. 302), which is further defined as “skills and behaviours that organizations expect from employees when performing work” (Armstrong, 2006, pg. 159). Looking at the concept of competencies as the central point of analysis builds upon literature researching competencies of coordinating actors in care coordination (Antonelli, McAllister, & Popp, 2009; Haas, Swan, & Haynes, 2013), coordinating actors in early childhood health and care (Appleton et al., 1997; Baudelot, Rayna, Mayer, & Musatti, 2003), and organization and management literature (Kersiene & Savaneviciene, 2009; Le Deist & Winterton, 2005; Schmiedinger, Valentin, & Stephan, 2005; Taatila, 2004). The term competence is also appropriate for the context of ECED in Tanzania as it has been incorporated into early childhood education policy and curriculum to denote the 10 desired skills and abilities children should learn in school (Ministry of Education Science and Technology, 2016; Tanzania Institute of Education, 2016). Through exploration of the organizational roles and individual competences needed to perform coordination, a more complete and complex understanding of an MLCA can be built. Focusing in on individual competencies—which are performed by one or more members of an organization—can allow for hiring, capacity building, and future planning to be better understood and undertaken. Although it can’t be assumed that MLCAs in different country contexts would look exactly the same, it is likely that they would have to utilize some of the same roles and competencies to accomplish the purpose they have been given. Also, understanding a MLCA within the context of Tanzania has implications for other Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. SSA countries are a diverse set of contexts, each with their own unique set of political, historical, cultural, and policy contexts. However, many SSA countries share the LMIC status, as well as high international and non-governmental organization involvement. Given these similarities, this dissertation also explores how ECNetwork might provide an example for other SSA countries and LMICs around the world. Understanding how Tanzania, despite lack of an integrated policy, is working to coordinate its ECED system through the work of a MLCA calls for countries to reflect on their own systems and contemplate whether a similar actor might be created. If so, the detailed descriptions and examples of roles and competencies which ECNetwork performs in its position as MLCA can suggest the capacities which might need to be strengthened in the development of their own ECED system’s MLCA. Mid-level Coordinating Actor Because I use the phrase mid-level coordinating actor (MLCA) throughout this dissertation, and it has not been used in previous ECED literature, the key concept of MLCA 11 needs to be discussed at the outset. My initial conceptualization of MLCA that I utilize and build upon through this case study research draws on concepts from fields of research on early childhood systems, organizational management, international development, and public administration. The main concepts include bridging organizations (Brown, 1991; Crona & Parker, 2012), boundary spanning entities (Berlinski & Schady, 2015; Kagan et al., 2015), and boundary spanners (Williams, 2002). Crona & Parker (2012) discuss the concept of bridging organizations. They note the current lack of a generally accepted definition, and offer that bridging organizations are, “organizations that link diverse actors or groups through some form of strategic bridging process…[and] are relatively distinct in terms of resources and personnel from the parties they seek to integrate” (pg. 3). The literature’s highlighting of bridging organizations as strategically linking and integrating diverse actors allows us to more deeply understand MLCAs. Framing MLCA’s work as strategic allows for increased attention to the intentionality of their actions. It is necessary to understand this type of actor as more than a passive coordinator, but rather as an actor which makes deliberate and purposeful connections in order to accomplish increased ECED system coordination. Additionally, Crona and Parker’s definition of bridging organizations helps to distinguish between MLCAs and the other actors, organizations, and stakeholders they connect, bridge between, span, or coordinate. It is necessary to know what a MLCA is and what differentiates them from other actors within a system. Locating where MLCAs are positioned within a system is an additional part of the process to better understand this type of actor and how their location within the system enables performance of their roles. Aiding in building an understanding of the importance of location for 12 MLCAs is the concept of boundary spanning entities (BSEs). MLCAs can be described as an integrated governance mechanism. According to Kalita and Mondal (2012), Integrated governance describes the structures of formal and informal relations to manage affairs through collaborative approaches which may be between government agencies, or across levels of government and/or the non-government sector. Integrated governance includes, but is not restricted to, consultation with key stakeholders and interdepartmental committees, sharing of resources and decision-making power about how these resources will be used as well as recognition that systems must change as a result to accommodate shared goals and improved services. (Kalita & Mondal, 2012, pg. 760). Berlinski & Schady (2015) explain that the BSE—an example of an integrated governance mechanism—was created with the “explicit mandate to coordinate efforts among a myriad of relevant institutions” and “assure horizontal and vertical coordination” (pg. 183). Although the example of BSEs that these authors discuss are part of the government, my exploration of MLCAs uses a broader conceptualization which includes actors which may exist outside of government. BSEs have been identified within the ECED systems in Chile and Colombia (Kagan et al., 2015). Chile Crece Contigo and De Cero a Siempre, both government supported entities in Chile and Colombia respectively, act as integrating governance mechanisms, connecting the various sectors, institutions, and organizations that are involved in ECED programs and policies in order to “organize services around the comprehensive development and needs of each child and his/her family, rather than around those of service providers” (Kagan et al., 2015, p. 173). Through these BSEs, both the vertical and horizontal connections between government bodies 13 within ECED systems are strengthened. While these two examples are of mechanisms developed within national government, it is possible to imagine other actors playing a similar role. For example, because non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become key players in the implementation process and policy decisions in developing countries (Bratton, 1989; Eze Akani, 2016; Hobe, 1997; Lutabingwa & Gray, 1997), it is not unlikely that some of the roles which Chile Crece Contigo and De Cero a Siempre play in their respective countries might otherwise be filled by NGOs within other countries. In this dissertation, exploration of a non-state actor MLCA expands the possibilities for the types of actors which might serve as MLCA in the absence of a new government office. Closely related to the organizational concept of BSEs, Williams (2011) conceptualizes individuals who play the role of boundary spanner as having “a distinct role to play in managing the highly interdependent and collaborative arenas…by deploying a range of competencies, supported by relevant knowledge, experience and personal attributes” (pg. 26). These boundary spanners can be understood as the individuals within BSEs who carry out the actions. He describes the action taken by these Boundary Spanners as revolving “around people and organizations working together to manage and tackle common issues, to promote better co- ordination and integration of public services, to reduce duplication, to make the best use of scarce resources and to meet gaps in service provision and to satisfy unmet needs” (pg. 27). The description of the actions taken by boundary spanners is well suited to conceptualizing the individuals who make up the personnel of MLCAs within ECED systems. In the case of ECNetwork, it was established to help coordinate stakeholders around salient issues facing ECED in Tanzania. While Williams documents examples of these boundary spanning individuals within integrated health and social care settings such as care coordinators, partnership managers, 14 and health promotion specialists working for local and national health authorities (Williams, 2002), because health and social care are already important sectors in the ECED system, William’s boundary spanner concept is easily utilized in order to conceptualize MLCAs in the holistic ECED context. The coordination of ECED systems requires integrating the multi- sectoral contexts of early childhood, more efficiently utilizing resources, identifying gaps, coordinating solutions, and increasing efficiency through elimination of duplicated efforts (Neuman & Devercelli, 2012), which parallels how Williams describes the work and purpose of his boundary spanners. Williams’ conceptualization outlines a framework of roles and competencies that are practiced by boundary spanners. These roles and competencies provided a starting-point for my analysis of the data collected during the case study of ECNetwork. My dissertation research employs the concept of boundary spanner to expand understanding the ways through which MLCAs can impact ECED system components. Williams describes boundary spanners as “a valuable and distinctive class of actor, operating within intra- and inter-sectoral collaborative environments” (Williams, 2011, pg. 27). This framework by Williams provides the opportunity to explore how boundary spanners may be conceptualized in the particular context of ECED. Because of the expansive nature of coordination of a system such as ECED—and the importance of bridging and spanning boundaries between government sectors, system levels, and types of actors—highlighting this type of actors as a mid-level coordinating actor (MLCA) highlights their position of coordinating between ‘others’ as a key identifier. Although Williams explores examples of boundary spanners as “individuals” within health care coordination, he notes that there is “ambiguity around the notion of boundary spanner” (pg. 27). The ambiguity in the definition of boundary spanner allows for further opportunity to conceptualize this type of actor, in this case, as an organization. 15 These conceptualizations assist in shaping three areas of focus for investigating ECNetwork and their position as MLCA: location, actions, and unique attributes. These three areas provided a frame as I entered the field to begin my case study and continued to guide my analysis once field research had concluded. Study Significance Findings from this research will contribute to current conceptualizations of actors within early childhood systems, how this type of actor participates in systems building and coordination, and how their place within an early childhood system can be understood in relation to the diverse set of stakeholders which comprise it. Because mid-level coordination has been identified as an area of ECED systems in need of improvement internationally (Yoshikawa et al., 2018), this research provides initial work for understanding the areas of capacity MLCAs need to function effectively. Focusing on a non-state MLCA broadens the conception of this type of actor beyond previous examples inside government (Kagan et al., 2015). Looking beyond government entities calls for using contextual factors to determine the type of actor best suited to fill the roles of MLCA. My dissertation also contributes knowledge to ECED systems literature in several ways. First, this study is an account of the initial steps taken to coordinate a low-income country’s ECED system. This is important, as most current accounts have been summarized after the fact by large international organizations, or are from middle- to high-income countries. Past studies of ECED systems show a need to bolster support at this level (Britto et al., 2014). This study offers a clearer understanding of how these actors are or might be developed and utilized. Furthermore, because this ECNetwork is non-governmental, the ways that this entity interacts, influences, contributes, and shapes the formation and implementation of policy and programs is 16 noteworthy. Around the world, especially in low-income countries, the involvement of NGOs in education and other areas of development is growing. This research adds to the conceptualization of how this type of mid-level actor takes-up different roles and works as a part of the larger governmental run system. This has relevance to countries around the world where NGOs and governments have begun to work together to reach shared goals. Conclusion In many ECED systems, there is a real need for coordination. It therefore is important to understand how entities and actors can play coordinating roles. My study begins with this question: How does a MLCA coordinate multi-sectoral actors, policies, and programs which make up an ECED system? The ideas of boundary spanning entities, boundary spanners, and bridging organizations all appear to have potential to help us think about the capacities and roles of MLCAs, which can have significance for policy in many countries challenged to improve their ECED systems. As an organizational case study, I focus on the microprocesses of roles and competencies in order to understand how coordination is carried out. In the remaining chapters of this dissertation I offer a case study of ECNetwork and the work that it does as MLCA to coordinate actors, policies, and programs in the Tanzanian ECED system. In Chapter Two I discuss global and national Tanzanian contexts important to understanding the ECED, the actors involved, and the policies and practices which shape the system. The final section of Chapter Two is dedicated to providing background on ECNetwork as the focal MLCA. Chapter Three details the research methodology, data collection, analytic framework, and analysis process. Chapter Four discusses the specific roles and competencies that were found to be integral to the functioning of ECNetwork as a MLCA. Chapter Five looks at ECNetwork’s involvement in policy advocacy and how the competencies it develops through its 17 mandate of coordination facilitate this. Finally, Chapter Six summarizes the overall findings from the case study and offers recommendations for how MLCAs might be used to facilitate coordination within diverse and complex ECED systems, as well as the conditions which support their ability to function as MCLAs and challenges that may inhibit progress. 18 CHAPTER 2 FRAMING THE STUDY & TANZANIAN ECED CONTEXT Introduction So, we have Health policy, we have Education policy, we have what you call Social Welfare kind of strategy which is embedded in Child Development policy. So, all of these are looking at the same age range, and ECD in Tanzania it has been defined as any intervention directed at children ages 0-8. So, there are some demarcation in terms of how the policy treat these children. In terms of age groups there are three main age groups: 0-2, which is normally covered by the Health policy, or Health sector as a leading sector; then there is 3-5 which is under Social Welfare commission’s jurisdiction; and then there is 6-8 which is from Education. So, all these sectoral Ministries have oversight according to the age group you are referring to. […] So, there are some contradictions, in terms of how the sector is regulated, how it is coordinated, and harmonization. That’s where the challenge is, in terms that, everyone who is a sector feels that they have oversight. And that oversight overlaps, the mandate on the roles and responsibilities are not that clear to know that where do you cross, where do you connect. What mandate do you have? Given that the current Education and Training Policy of 2014, ETP, recognize that Education Ministry or sector is responsible for welfare of children from the ages of 3. Now, in the past, any child below 5 was not under the jurisdiction of the Education sector; they were not covered by Education sector policy. Then it only covered from 5 and above, where these are the children who enter preprimary, and then they go to basic 19 education all the way to tertiary. But, with the new policy this age group of 3-5 is also now covered. Now, this has led to a lot of confusions when it comes to modality of delivery. (Adam, interview 1) The difficulty for coordination in a system where no single policy document exists to provide a summative outline, aligning all the country’s previous policies, is that there is likely conflict and overlap. In Tanzania, most of the issues arise in policies that have overlapping responsibility for different age groups. This excerpt from an interview with a partner of ECNetwork who has deep knowledge and experience of Tanzanian policies highlights the issues these conflicting policies cause in the everyday functioning of the ECED system. He goes on to discuss how these policy conflicts play out on the ground: If Social Welfare Commissioner walks in a preprimary school or like a preschool, and there are children who are below age of 5 and they are being taught in a school setting, he has the power to close down that school. Yes, and if somebody appointed by the Commissioner for Education goes to a school setting where there is a preschool, where there is a day care center, if there is a curricula involved and whether the children who are enrolled are below…are between the age groups of 3 and above, he also has the power to close. (Adam, interview 1) Unclear, overlapping responsibility makes both the monitoring and implementation of ECED programs difficult. Those that monitor these programs are governed by the policies of their individual sector ministry, their work is clear and they follow the rules and regulations as they have been instructed. However, those that are implementing ECED programs are caught between different governance structures, with each structure telling them, differently, how to conduct ECED appropriately. 20 So, they are contradicting. There are times where by Social Welfare Commissioner will close a school and then it will be reopened by the Commissioner for Education. The process where the commission of education will open a school and the social welfare commission will close it, you see what I mean. So, those kind of contradiction is what exist, and that’s the reason why even the sectoral policies, especially for ECD have not been endorsed, because they need to clear a lot of issues. (Adam, interview 1) This long and detailed account of how the current policies in Tanzania don’t naturally form an easy to understand coordinated system highlights the need for more attention on multi-sectoral and multi-level conversations and mechanisms for coordination. The ECED system in Tanzania won’t be changed simply by editing these policies, nor will it be change if only the government officials understand what is being mandated and implemented. The number of different types of actors involved in the Tanzanian ECED system, coupled with the contradictory policies that have been in place for years and, in some cases, decades, make navigating the system difficult. There is a clear and present need for coordinating the ECED system. The government has recognized ECNetwork as the mid-level coordinating actor (MLCA) mandated to bridge the divide between the government who makes the policies and non-state actors who support the implementation of government programs, and to locate capacity and funding for projects and programs the government doesn’t have the resources to complete themselves. In this chapter I look at the contextual and historical factors that have shaped Tanzanian governance structures, and the Tanzanian ECED system that has resulted from it. I take a ground level view and explore the contradictions that are present in the ECED system. I begin with a 21 discussion of the global and international trends and initiatives that have shaped, and will continue to shape the ECED agenda within Tanzania at both the policy and programmatic levels. Factors Shaping ECED Systems and Policies Policy plays an important role in promoting coordination in ECED systems because it helps to define the roles of disparate actors, the allocation of resources, and the plans for monitoring and evaluation. ECED systems are shaped by a constellation of national and international policies, which affect the system directly and indirectly. Policies which directly impact the ECED system are those that detail service provision, implementation, governance responsibilities, and financial provisions. Indirectly, ECED systems are influenced by policies which reside in the larger political, public, cultural, and economic systems which structure the country in which they reside (Yoshikawa & Currie, 2011). International Agendas International policy and program agendas often play a role in agenda setting for countries around the globe. This international role can be clearly seen in the area of ECED. Through such world events as the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, international organizations began to place an increasingly stronger focus on development of early childhood education and development (ECED) programs and policies, especially in developing countries. In Tanzanian policy, the “Law of the Child Act” (United Republic of Tanzania, 2009) echoes the rights outlined during the Convention on the Rights of Children (United Nations, 1989), contextualizing them to include other laws and procedures already in place. The Tanzanian Law of the Child Act begins by stating that the Act was created to “provide for reform and consolidation of laws relating to children, to stipulate rights of the child and promote, protect and maintain the welfare of a child with a view to giving effect to international and regional 22 conventions on the rights of the child” (United Republic of Tanzania, 2009, pg. 9). Similarly, the UN Rights of the Child (1989) states: States’ Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation (pg. 3). Although the bolstering of national resources through international co-operation is not mentioned in the Tanzanian Act, throughout this dissertation the presence of international co-operation and support is visible in the work and activities on the ground. Early childhood education has also been emphasized in the “Education for All” movement, which includes among its goals: “Expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children” (Education Forum, 2000). This goal was elaborated upon in the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2015a) developed by the UN, although the MDGs focused mainly on primary education. The goal was then refined further in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), announced in 2015 which explicitly states the importance of ECED (United Nations, 2015b) in Goal 4.2, “By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and preprimary education so that they are ready for primary school” (pg. 21). The highlighting of need for quality ECED shifted years of focus on increasing primary enrollment instead to increasing quality ECED service provision. In addition to the international development organizations and international policy and development forums, the global scientific community has also marshalled evidence in support of 23 advancing ECED. While there have been countless studies, The Lancet published several series of articles (2007, 2011, 2017) which have been circulated globally and touted by international organizations. The most recent series in 2017 was also published in a condensed executive summary prepared by several development organizations (WHO, UNICEF, & World Bank Group, 2016). Each of the three articles in this series highlighted how scientific evidence supports various recommendations and calls for action in ECED. Each is based on the fact that the early childhood years are critical times for investment as they impact a child’s ability to reach their full developmental potential; they offer evidence to support the impact of ECED throughout the life course. The first article of the series, written by Black et al. (2017), discusses the need to invest in increasing coordination, monitoring, and evaluation of early childhood services in low- and middle-income countries as a way to address the lack of consistent quality and access (Black et al., 2017). Black and colleagues highlight that a holistic approach, that attends to nurturing care—which includes “health, nutrition, security and safety, responsive caregiving, and early learning” (pg. 77)—is required to gain the desired benefits in the face of accumulated adversities such as poverty and stunting. The second paper in the series (Britto et al., 2017) centers on the integration of nurturing care activities beyond the child’s immediate environment to other social contexts. Britto explains that these contexts support nurturing care through creating: …a stable environment that is sensitive to children’s health and nutritional needs, with protection from threats, opportunities for early learning, and interactions that are responsive, emotionally supportive, and developmentally stimulating. As an overarching concept, nurturing care is supported by a large array of social contexts—from home to parental work, child care, schooling, the wider community, and policy influences (pg. 91). 24 In order to reach the population at scale, particularly the most vulnerable, the authors suggest that interventions to support development from pre-pregnancy through early childhood can be integrated into existing programs and platforms. The third and final paper in The Lancet series spotlights the need for scaling up sustainable effective and practical programs at the national scale (Richter et al., 2017). Richter et al. note that the key to achieving scale-up lies in “political prioritisation, implementation of policies that enable families to provide young children with nurturing care, delivery systems through which effective interventions can be scaled feasibly, governance structures to ensure that young children’s holistic needs are addressed, and affordability” (pg. 105). This paper is particularly important in highlighting the components of the kind of national system needed for quality programs and services to be utilized, supported, and sustained. Promotion of the improvement of ECED by relying on a systems-level approach has become the preferred perspective forwarded by international and global organizations. For example, The World Bank currently funds two major ECED initiatives: The Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) and the Early Learning Partnerships (ELP). The goal of SABER is to produce data on education policies and institutions around the world to allow countries to learn from others and strengthen their own systems systematically as a result. ECED is a key focal area for the SABER initiative (The World Bank, n.d.). SABER-Early Childhood Development assesses countries in three main areas that are considered priority policy goals: Establishing an enabling environment, implementing widely, and monitoring and assuring quality (World Bank Group, 2016). The Early Learning Partnership is a multi-donor trust fund which aims to work with countries to “build programs, policies and research that deliver an impact on a global scale” (World Bank, 2015, p. 1). This systems approach stems from the belief 25 that “in order for an early childhood system to exist, in addition to quality programs, there must be a solid infrastructure that supports the programs” (Kagan & Roth, 2017, pg. 137). Through a focus on the multiple sectors which make up ECED’s system, SABER recognizes that “multiple public service systems are needed to ensure young children’s needs are met and that these different systems, as elements of the overarching system, must be connected and aligned with one another” (Bruner, 2012, pg. 36). Major international organizations such as the World Bank, UNESCO, and OECD have also conducted or sponsored many of the research projects resulting in policy and governance recommendations (Bertram et al., 2016; Pia Rebello Britto et al., 2013; Kaga, Bennett, & Moss, 2010; Vargas-Barón, 2005). Britto et al (2013), supported by UNICEF, conducted a comparative qualitative study in three countries: Cambodia, Kenya, and Laos. Their study highlighted issues surrounding coordination of ECED systems and services in low-income countries. This study is of note because it is one of the few ECED systems research reports that focuses on lower income countries. Additionally, the inclusion of Kenya—as a Sub-Saharan African country (SSA)—makes it one of the few examples of ECED systems in SSA. One of the most influential and largest scale policy changes these international groups have pushed for is integration of ECED systems and policies. They argue that integration of ECED systems and policies provides: • More coherent policy and greater equality and consistency across sectors in terms of social objectives, regulation, funding and staffing regimes, curriculum and assessment, costs to parents, and opening hours, in contrast to high fragmentation of policy and services. • Greater and more effective investment in the youngest children (under 3 years), producing higher quality services for them. 26 • Enhanced continuity of young children’s experiences as variations in access and quality are lessened under one ministry, and links at the services level – across age groups and settings – are more easily forged. • Improved public management of services by reducing the time spent on coordinating initiatives of different sectors, leading to better quality and increased access by parents. (Kaga et al., 2010, pg. 4-5) Countries around the world from Korea (Kaga, Barnett, & Bennett, 2012), Sweden, Slovenia, New Zealand, Brazil, Jamaica, and Belgium (Kaga et al., 2010), Bangladesh (Hamadani, Nahar, Huda, & Tofail, 2014), and most recently South Africa (Desmond et al., 2019) have focused their efforts on integrating ECED services and policies in order to gain these benefits and better coordinate their ECED systems. International Policy Trends for Integration Globally, efforts to bring coordination to ECED systems have focused primarily on the development of national integrated early childhood policies (IECP) (Haddad, 2002; Kaga et al., 2012; Neuman & Devercelli, 2012, 2013). An IECP brings together multiple sectors and capitalizes on collective knowledge and experience in order to develop “cost-effective and higher quality [ECED] services through consolidating administrative functions and ensuring services take a holistic approach to child development” (Vargas-Barón, 2013). However, creating and implementing an IECP in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC), where a variety of capacity and resource constraints temper policymakers’ ambition, can be difficult (Desmond et al., 2019; Neuman & Okeng’, 2019). This process and the eventual implementation of such a policy, therefore, can be a hard sell to governments, especially considering that a country may have separate ECED policies that they already expended effort to create. This was the case in 27 Tanzania. Although a draft IECP for Tanzania was developed by a group of national stakeholders, it failed to receive final approval by the national government. This left Tanzania— still in need of coordination and cohesion in their ECED system—without a policy induced mechanism for coordinating the various actors, policies, and programs that exist within different ministries and are implemented by both government and non-state actors across the country. According to Neuman and Devercelli (2012), the creation of an IECP has three main objectives. First, it outlines a country’s vision for its children, and it clearly states the goals, objectives, and strategies that are necessary to bring the vision to fruition. Second, a national ECED policy makes clear the responsibilities and roles of different actors or agencies, which is extremely important in an area that is multisectoral in nature. Third, if developed through a participatory process, it enables private and public sectors to have the opportunity to define their roles in areas such as funding, implementation, and service provision (Neuman & Devercelli, 2012). Some countries that have chosen to take this integration route have created special policy mechanisms to stimulate cross-sectoral collaboration (Kagan et al., 2015). However, even where an IECP has been implemented, there is evidence that mid-level coordination remains a challenge. Building capacity at this level may be key to increasing coordination and improving system function (Britto et al., 2013, 2014). Although creating an integrated ECED system has been shown to be beneficial where it has been implemented, not all countries have chosen to take this route and others have only gotten partway through the process before its progress stalled. The reasons for choosing not to develop such a policy or getting stalled along the way are likely as numerous as the different country contexts in which they are found. For some countries, such as Guatemala, a historical conceptualization of ECED focused around health and nutrition hasn’t created the same impetus 28 for change as for other countries in the region that are beginning to recognize ECED as more multidimensional (Berlinski & Schady, 2015). Coordination at the mid-level has been found to be a weakness in ECED systems (Britto et al., 2013)—even those with IECPs. Hence it is important to look beyond national level government mechanisms of coordination. Some countries have recognized this weakness in coordination and formally built a mid-level coordinating actor (MLCA) into their ECED system—such as the boundary spanning entity in Chile’s Crece Contigo ECED system (Berlinski & Schady, 2015; Kagan et al., 2015). Many, however, have not formally identified such an actor. Therefore, it is important to understand the work that a MLCA does, so that countries might identify, create, or strengthen the capacity of such an actor within their existing ECED system. The ECED System in Tanzania In some ways Tanzania has been lauded as relatively successful in inter-sectoral coordination because of regular communication and positive working relationships facilitated through three national committees and a drafted Inter-sectoral Early Childhood Development Policy (IECDP) (World Bank, 2012). These three committees—the National Steering Committee (NSC), the National Technical Committee (NTC), and the National Early Childhood Development Secretariat (NECDS)—were established in 2006, and were tasked with the setting policies, establishing service standards, monitoring access and quality, and acting as coordinating bodies across the various agencies and entities involved in ECED in Tanzania (Neuman & Devercelli, 2012). 2012 was the most up to date review of these inter-sectoral coordination mechanisms before the 2015 election of current President Dr. John Pombe Magufuli in 2015. Many changes have since occurred and Tanzania remains a policy context with many challenges. 29 Starting in the late 2000s, Tanzania drafted a multi-sectoral ECED policy, the Inter- sectoral Early Childhood Development Policy (IECDP). The draft was finalized and submitted for approval in 2010 under the institutional anchor of the Ministry of Community Development, Gender, and Children. This integrated approach involves “multisectoral coordination and service integration with the goal of developing cost-effective and higher quality ECED services through consolidating administrative functions and ensuring services take a holistic approach to child development” (Vargas-Barón, 2013, p. 444). However, even with these possible benefits for coordination within the country’s ECED system, the Tanzanian IECDP neither received final approval from Parliament nor developed a costed implementation plan (Neuman & Devercelli, 2012). During conversations with my research participants, the reason for the “collapse” (Agnes, interview 1) of the IECDP efforts and its failure to pass was attributed to the Cabinet feeling that it was just adding another policy where sectoral policy already existed (Adam, interview 1). Tanzania’s ECED sector is currently governed by a disparate set of policies, spread across diverse ministries. The most recent ECED policy in Tanzania is the Child Development Policy (CDP) of 2008 (Ministry of Community Development Gender and Children, 2008), which had its origins in a policy first instituted in 1996 under a similar, yet differently titled ministry (Ministry of Community Development Women Affairs and Children, 1996). This policy currently remains the country’s outline for areas concerning the Tanzanian child. In this policy, using the definition set in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the National Constitution (The United Republic of Tanzania, 1977; United Nations, 1989), a child is defined as a person under the age of eighteen years. The stated objectives of the policy are focused around the areas of the rights of the child, child survival, child development, child protection, and program implementation (Ministry of Community Development Women Affairs 30 and Children, 1996). Within each of these areas, the roles and responsibilities of children, parents, guardians, communities, and institutions and government in the coordination and implementation of efforts towards the goals of the policy are outlined. With a focus on communities, the CDP has the objective to educate communities on the problems facing children today and “educate communities in order to ensure that children inherit and safeguard Tanzanian’s culture, traditions and practices” (pg. 15). An objective specifically focused on parents is the emphasis on taking joint responsibility in caring for and bringing up children. In relation to law, the CDP intends to ensure that laws are in place to deal with cases of child abuse. Although the section on implementation is less than a page long, the CDP does discuss roles and responsibilities throughout the document and coordination is mentioned as key. The policy states as one of its ten objectives, that it is “to clarify on roles and responsibilities of children, parents, guardians, communities, institutions and government in planning, coordination and implementation of children development plans” (pg. 15). Named actors within this document include the Ministries concerned with legal affairs, social welfare, child affairs, local governments, and communities, as well as specific stakeholders such as police and the judiciary, voluntary organizations, religious organizations, and parents. These actors are involved in some or all of the identified areas of development of a child’s physical, mental, moral, and spiritual growth (Ministry of Community Development Women Affairs and Children, 1996). This identification of actors and areas of development reflect the multi-sectoral and varied stakeholder context of ECED issues. Specific to education, ECED was first included in national education policy in the 1995 Education and Training Policy (Ministry of Education and Culture, 1995). This policy required a preprimary classroom be added to all primary schools in the country. When this policy was 31 updated in 2014, two major changes impacted ECED. First, it made one year of preprimary education mandatory for all children. Second, it established formal mechanisms for providing funding and oversight to preprimary education (United Republic of Tanzania, 2014). View from the Ground The previous section highlighted the most recent large-scale policies which govern the ECED system in Tanzania. However, most of the policies were enacted decades ago and I became aware of discussions during my data collection that the government is discussing the possibility of updating several of them in the near future. While these policies have remained largely the same since their inception, the government ministries which wrote and implemented them have undergone many changes, so much so that when beginning my dissertation data collection, it was difficult to determine what Ministries actually existed in Tanzania. In several annual reports on their work in Tanzania (UNICEF, 2016, 2019), UNICEF refers to the Ministry of Health, but in The World Bank’s SABER 2012 country report for Tanzania the ministry in charge of health was referred to as the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. Another example involves the two editions of Tanzania’s Child Development Policy. The policy in 1996 was written by the Ministry of Community Development, Women Affairs, and Children (Ministry of Community Development Women Affairs and Children, 1996), while the second edition of this policy was written by the Ministry of Community Development, Gender, and Children (Ministry of Community Development Gender and Children, 2008). Today, neither of these ministries exist. Instead, the Child Development Policy resides within the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children (MoHCDGEC). From these documents, there seemed to be a periodic shift in the names that appeared on government policy and documents and in the published research by large international 32 organizations. This made it difficult to build a picture in my head of who was actually “in charge” of ECED in the country. Once I arrived and was able to discuss this confusion with participants, I realized it was clear that this shifting of ministries had indeed happened and caused some issues. Currently the ministry which is the “custodian” (Eva, interview 1) of early childhood is the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children (MoHCDGEC). This ministry used to be two separate ministries (Ministry of Health and Ministry of Community Development, Gender, and Children), but was combined by the current president. The assignment of the MoHCDGEC as the lead ministry is a structural change noted by scholars as one that can begin to facilitate integration and cross-sectoral collaboration (Kaga et al., 2012). According to participants, although the MoHCDGEC is the lead ministry for early childhood, many different ministries oversee and implement various components of ECED: the Ministry of Education is responsible for all education matters beginning at pre-primary school; the Ministry of Home Affairs is responsible for ECED in refugee settings such as the three camps of Nyarugusu, Mtendeli, and Nduta which host refugees, a majority of which are from Burundi and Democratic Republic of the Congo (UNICEF, 2019). The Ministry of Home Affairs also houses the Police desk for Gender and Children which deals with the protection and security of women and children. In addition to these sectoral ministries, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is responsible for coordinating multi-sectoral early childhood policies and has the power to call lead officials from different ministries together for multi-sectoral meetings. Implementation of policies and programs at the lower levels (regional, district, and local) of government is overseen by the President’s Office of Regional Administration and Local Government (PO-RALG). Ministry of Finance and Planning manages the budget allocations for 33 all ministries and has to be engaged starting at the ground level in order to keep ECED issues in the budget. Housed within the MoHCDGEC is the Non-Governmental Organization Registrar. This office is critical in the management and oversight of the large number of NGOs which reside and work within the country. The NGOs which are registered and work in the country provide capacity and knowledge that is critical for the government to utilize in order to accomplish the goals it has set for ECED in the country. This is stated clearly in the National NGO policy: Non-Governmental Organizations [NGOs] are increasingly being recognized by government as potent forces for social and economic development; important partners in nation building and national development; valuable forces in promoting the qualitative and quantitative development of democracy and not least, important contributors to GNP. The Government of Tanzania recognizes the need to work together with NGOs and the need for such cooperation to extend to other key players, including funders, disadvantaged people themselves, other sectors of civil society and the wider public. NGOs has themselves been re- examining and evaluating their work, re-defining their roles, whom they serve and are accountable to, and endeavoring to function more effectively and efficiently (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2001, pg. 3). This recognition of NGOs as important to the development of Tanzania is reiterated throughout this policy, the subsequent NGO Act (Parliment of the United Republic of Tanzania, 2002), and the NGO code of conduct passed by The National Council of NGOs (The National Council of NGOs, 2008). Over the past five years in which I have been doing research in 34 Tanzania I have had the opportunity to observe the importance of NGOs in ECED program implementation first-hand. How the Tanzanian ECED System has been Shaped by the Past In essays outlining his views and intentions for Tanzania, first president Julius Nyerere said, “In our traditional African society we were individuals within a community. We took care of the community, and the community took care of us” (Nyerere, 1962, pg. 6-7). With the best intentions, Tanzania moved forward as an independent nation, focused on the development of its people and economy through education and self-reliance. Nyerere believed that education was the key to moving the country forward and to building a population of knowledgeable, hard- working, and community focused citizens (J. Nyerere, 1967). Through my time doing field research, I was reminded of the impact that President Nyerere had, and continues to have, on Tanzanians. With his picture in every office, school, government building, and shop I entered it was clear that no matter what direction the government of Tanzania takes, Nyerere’s ideals and hopes hold symbolic sway. There nonetheless has been a substantial period of change since Nyerere was in office. Nyerere’s government developed their own set of reform policies to try and improve the country’s economic situation. These failed to result in the desired improvements. External assistance was finally sought in 1986 by a new president, President Ali Hassan Mwinyi, and he accepted an agreement with the IMF to implement their required structural adjustment policies (SAPs) in order to receive a loan. With these SAPs in place, the social service programs and structures that Nyerere had implemented—fee-free education, large civil service sector, subsidies, etc.—were eliminated. Along with these policy reversals, there were also increased opportunities for foreign investment 35 (Vavrus, 2005). The requirements that were put in place for Tanzania to receive an IMF loan were similar to the requirements placed on other countries which implement SAPs. In Tanzania the SAPs had the unintended consequence of lowering school enrollment because of the addition of fees for which families were responsible, and increased activity in informal sector work because of the decline of available public sector (government) jobs. Even though primary school fees were again eliminated in 2002, and school attendance increased, the quality of education is still low (UNICEF, 2019). This, combined with increased privatization of major utilities and public institutions—which were previously state-owned—has meant more opportunities for foreign investment. According to Ferguson (2005), this rolling back of formerly government provided services rapidly decreased the national government’s capacity and shifted it to NGOs and other non-state actors. Heterarchical Governance and Power of the Weak State By opening up Tanzania’s social service sector to international investment and decreasing the number of government workers, the SAPs decreased the government’s capacity to implement policies and programs. This made it necessary for the state to rely on non-state actors—both domestic and international—to fill the void that was left. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have become key players in policy implementation in most developing countries (Bratton, 1989; Eze Akani, 2016; Hobe, 1997; Lutabingwa & Gray, 1997), and their influence around the world continues to grow, not only in Tanzania (Samoff, 2012). This is part of a broader international shift from hierarchical governance—top down—to a governance structure in which the national government increasingly shares the work with other actors, both public and private (Bevir, 2011). This new form of governance is conceptualized as heterarchical governance (Avelar & Ball, (in press); Ball, 2016; Hogan, 2016), or a network of governance 36 comprised of non-governmental actors, institutions, and agencies along with the state. According to Ball (2010), “loss of state capacity for control of the economy or public services may be a crucial factor” (pg. 15) in shifting to a heterarchical form of governance. Through this alternative structure, the government focuses on: …reallocating tasks, and rearticulating the relationship between organizations and tasks across this divide. This redrawing and reallocation involves varied tasks: the creation of executive agencies (and Boards, Councils and Trusts); the establishing of private-public partnerships (of many different kinds); contracting-out state services to private providers; the use of think tanks, consultants, and knowledge companies for policy research and evaluation; philanthropic activity, and sponsorship to fund educational programs and innovations; the involvement of the voluntary sector (charities, nongovernmental organizations [NGOs], Trusts and Foundations, etc.) in service provision (Ball, 2010, pg. 15). Utilization of heterarchical governance in this way can be seen throughout the previously discussed NGO policy document, acknowledging the importance of many types of non-state actors in the social and economic development and national building (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2001). As the national government incorporates more and varied actors into the heterarchical governance structure, it is crucial to remember that this is not a handing over of power by the state. Ball (2010) explains and reframes this saying that “this is not a ‘hollowing out’ of the state; rather it is a new modality of state power, agency, and social action and indeed a new form of state” (pg. 14). There is still a hierarchy of power, but governance and completion of certain tasks get shifted by government to take advantage of non-state capacity. As Ball reminds us, these “bureaucracies continue to be the vehicle for a great deal of state activity and 37 the state does not hesitate to regulate or intervene, when it is able, or when its interests or objectives are not being served” (pg. 18). Although there is a great deal of power that still lies with the national government, this lack of government capacity for service provision, along with limited financial resources, means that—in development terms—Tanzania is a fragile or weak state. According to Batley and Mcloughlin (2010), “the effect of state fragility […] is likely to be that service provision by government is weak and other actors have stepped in to fill the gap. Private entrepreneurs, households, communities and non-governmental organizations are likely to be major providers of the services that exist” (pg. 131-132). Batley and Mcloughlin go on to say that in such a case, parallel initiatives can be used “where government may not be the direct provider of services but nevertheless assumes responsibility for making policy, contracting other providers, and regulating and monitoring services” (pg. 132). Batley and Mcloughlin (2010) highlight the ways in which these weak states maintain involvement in the provision of social services despite their limited capacity: • engaging non-state actors in policy dialogue, and formulating policies that provide the framework for service providers; • regulating by setting minimum standards and enforcing them, licensing, accrediting and facilitating providers, and safeguarding consumers; • contracting out government-financed services to [non-state service providers] or contracting in the support of [non-state service providers] to government services; • entering into mutual agreements for jointly financed collaboration between the state and [non-state service providers]. (Batley & Mcloughlin, 2010, pg. 136). 38 These indirect roles for government (Batley and Mcloughlin, 2010), are actions that fragile states might take to engage with the non-state actors who have the capacity to deliver services. These actions fit well into the heterarchical governance structure that Tanzania employs in many sectors and is highly relevant to the discussion of the situation of ECED in Tanzania. This will be discussed at greater length in subsequent chapters. Context of the Case Study The larger global and historical contexts previously discussed provide a background and a backdrop for the case study of ECNetwork’s coordination of the Tanzanian ECED system. However, in order to understand the on the ground realities and day to day challenges that ECNetwork encounters, more detailed information about the organization past and present, as well as their positioning in relation to others in the ECED system is necessary. The following sections provide information gathered about ECNetwork’s mandate, makeup, and positioning within the ECED system, as well as their history as an organization. Context of Focal Organization To study an MLCA in coordinating an ECED system, I chose the organizational actor ECNetwork. In Tanzania, ECNetwork has grown to be “a national ECD network of government and non-government stakeholders committed to strengthening national early childhood support through networking, information exchange, awareness-raising and advocacy” (Researcher A & Researcher B, 2015, p. 82). ECNetwork is recognized by the national government as the coordinating actor for ECED projects within the country, holds a seat on the National ECD Secretariat, and has representation within the national ECED working group (Researcher A & Researcher B, 2015; World Bank, 2012). This makes ECNetwork an interesting actor on which to center a study of coordination within the ECED system because of the involvement they 39 already have coordinating within both government and non-state actor spaces. Because of this diverse network, organizational purpose, and current work to coordinate the multi-sectoral ECED system in Tanzania, I chose this network as the MLCA on which to center my case study. Before analyzing the roles ECNetwork plays as a MLCA, and the competencies utilized by personnel to perform these roles, it is important to understand the organization’s history and current context. In addition to this, the following organizational context includes an analysis of what the “Mid” in Mid-level Coordinating Actor means in the case of Tanzania, and a brief timeline of events leading up to the initiation of my study. History of ECNetwork ECNetwork was established in 2000 by a group of Tanzanian government and non-state actors who were concerned with ECED issues and wanted to bring together other individuals and organizations to discuss how to support ECED in Tanzania (Researcher A & Researcher B, 2015). From this informal network, ECNetwork took shape and was formalized in order to “develop and maintain an active ECD network through strong institutional links between ECD- related organizations” (pg. 81). When registered with the government in several years later, ECNetwork increased their influence and were established formally as “a national ECD network of government and non-government stakeholders committed to strengthening national early childhood support through networking, information exchange, awareness-raising and advocacy” (pg. 82). This evolution was confirmed by interviewees during informal discussion and formal interviews. Just as Tanzania has been shaped by the impact of SAPs, so ECNetwork has been shaped by them as well. Before formal registration, ECNetwork was pivotal in the inclusion of ECED issues within the National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (NSGRP) or Mkukuta 40 in Kiswahili. This NSGRP was the second that Tanzania had prepared in response to requirements from the World Bank and IMF. One of ECNetwork’s administrators recalls this history well as he was working for an organization which was a member of ECNetwork during its inception: It was from 2001, it was, do you know that we call…the history of Mkukuta is from 2001 when the World Bank declared some of the countries were highly indebted countries…so they had to develop their “how to get out of poverty” that strategy, it is the Strategy to End Poverty. So those strategies, so then in the second strategy which was 2005, ECNetwork [had] to organize the organizations within country, to make sure that Mkukuta had ECD…the agenda, the ECD agenda was well featured in Mkukuta. Yeah, so if you can see that strategy, you will find that 40% of the strategy had ECD. You see? So that’s one of the biggest activities that [ECNetwork] played a role, in that strategy. So, if you see, even if you can see the strategy you can read over 40% of the strategy was early childhood development. (Edwin, interview 1) This early involvement of ECNetwork in national level policy and program decisions helped to define the space in which they would work as a formal actor. Through such initial work prior to formal registration, ECNetwork had already become involved in the Tanzanian ECED system. When its organizational constitution was drawn up for registration, ECNetwork was already engaged in the work the constitution outlined. The timing of ECNetwork joining the Tanzanian ECED system of actors also coincided with a global shift in thinking which took a holistic approach to ECED and focused on policy integration (IECP). ECNetwork helped to provide initial input from ECED stakeholders around the country to assist in development of the 41 IECP. Although the policy was never adopted, this early involvement by ECNetwork in attempts to coordinate and bring together the multi-sectoral Tanzanian ECED system places it as a historically relevant actor, and an established coordinating actor which has remained in ECED stakeholders’ minds through the years despite recent lack of activity. According to a recent institutional review of ECNetwork, this lack of activity began in 2015 after “leadership and financial accountability challenges” which resulted in “most of her supporters/donors” withdrawing their support (Reviewer A & Reviewer B, 2019, pg. 14). Following an ECED situation analysis of Tanzania in 2017 by an international NGO, it was determined that a “vacuum of multi-sectoral dialogue on ECD within and across all levels of stakeholder’s engagement” (pg. 15) had formed. One of the contributing factors identified as a contributing factor was the decline of ECNetwork’s involvement and “hence debilitating its capacity to sustain its former leadership role in coordinating stakeholder’s engagement in ECD dialogue” (pg. 15). This international NGO responded to this finding by taking ECNetwork on as a principal partner in the process of institutional reform and repositioning within the Tanzanian ECED system. ECNetwork Background Prior to Case Study Beginning with this ECED situation analysis in 2017, there have been several events which have helped ECNetwork to begin repositioning itself as an MLCA within the Tanzanian ECED system. Below, a timeline of events leading up to the initiation of my case study is presented. This is followed by a brief discussion of each event, how ECNetwork was involved, and how it contributed to their repositioning as MLCA. Feedback from stakeholders interviewed during the 2017 ECED situation analysis highlighted a few key points which brought ECNetwork into conversations about ECED in 42 Tanzania moving forward. The head of the organization who commissioned the analysis described participants as having a: fairly rosy perspective of the past dialogue (ECED), disappointment that it had ended up in the draft policy being rejected, but this all and all it was a strong community and that had abruptly really come to an end. There’d been a, very much a vacuum, a gap, demise, total, in integrated ECD dialogue, partnerships, visibility over a good three years or so for various different reasons which were proposed; a couple of the main ones being that [ECNetwork] had been a driver and had been the legitimate platform for bringing together the inputs, and [ECNetwork] had hit a total operational blackout. (Henry, interview 1) This vacuum that was left when ECNetwork’s work was halted was unfortunate because of the global dialogues which were increasingly centered on holistic and integrated ECED planning. Parallel to all this again, globally, the integrated ECD dialogue was shaping up like it had never done as well previously, I mean this is all in the same time with the SDGs, then the global strategy for women, adolescent, and children health which is translating the SDGs into goals and approaches, and then the Lancet series came out building on the science and saying ‘how do we take that to scale?’… (Henry, interview 1) Without concerted effort to keep up with these conversations by government and with no active ECED network organization in the country to assist them in doing so, Tanzania fell behind in government awareness and engagement with the global agenda. 43 …that then developed into this Nurturing Care Framework, so the whole global community’s got behind in trying to work out what is the approaches to interpreting the SDGs into actual policy commitments and potential child development gains, that just being launched again in May, so this is all been happening in 2-3 years as well parallel to this period of vacuum in Tanzania and then interest in starting to look at how to revitalize an ECD dialogue. So that’s an opportunity which was there externally as well in a certain way. (Henry, interview 1) Because of the leading role that ECNetwork had taken in the past to bring ECED issues from the ground together and presenting them at the national level, their absence diminished the ability of ECED issues to be brought to the attention of political leaders. Resulting dialogue disappeared. The combination of the feedback from the situation analysis and the increasing global ECED focus created an opportune window for ECNetwork to regain its former position and purpose. Through the logistical help of several international organizations—and funding from an additional organization—ECNetwork was able to begin participating again in national dialogue and started the process of regaining its former place within the ECED system. Because ECNetwork was brought back into the increasing ECED dialogue, they were invited to attend an East African ECED stakeholder meeting in Nairobi. This meeting, hosted by the African Early Childhood Network (AfECN), was the launch of the Nurturing Care Framework (NCF) in Africa. Tanzania was referred to in several interviews and meetings as a ‘pathfinder’ country for contextualizing the framework, and it is being looked to as an example that other countries might follow. Following this meeting, there was discussion of the need to 44 have a national ECED forum in Tanzania where this information could be shared and a path forward discussed and decided. This national forum was brought together quickly. It took place in late 2018 and was chaired by the MoHCDGEC and co-chaired by ECNetwork. The main objectives of the forum were as follows: • Provide snapshot of scientific evidence on ECD from the 2017 Lancet Series • Provide status snapshot of ECD implementation in Tanzania • Provide an Overview of the Nurturing Care Framework (NCF) and its implications to Tanzania • Share past and current practices in multisectoral coordination to inform the way forward for multisectoral coordination of ECD in Tanzania; and • Recommend steps to be taken to proposed way forward for the revitalization of multisectoral coordination of ECD in Tanzania. (National ECED forum summary document, 2018, pg. 9) This forum was the first opportunity for ECNetwork to be reintroduced to ECED stakeholders at the national level, share their current efforts to regain their position as coordinator of non-state ECED actors, and their plans for revitalizing ECED dialogue in Tanzania. The wide participation provided ECNetwork with visibility across the country and was a start to building back its legitimacy in the public eye: There was wide participation. It was represented across the various multisectoral departments and agencies. Community Development did host. The presentations around sort of snapshots of the status across different child development domains were delivered by different government departments, so it had that legitimacy that 45 was…you know their presentations were paired up with different non-state partners to try and just facilitate this closer partnership, collaboration […] it was already a milestone, even if it withered out, and there’s nothing, it was already to some extent a milestone in revitalizing the ECD dialogue from where it had been, and now there was some, something happened and [ECNetwork] was visible a little bit again, and some expectations of being set up. (Henry, interview 1) The visibility that this forum provided ECNetwork meant that ECNetwork was once again engaging with stakeholders with whom it had lost credibility during its former administration. This increased visibility initiated discussions and curiosity about ECNetwork’s current situation. During a multi-organization meeting I attended, I was pulled aside by a funder who was curious about my take on ECNetwork, having heard about the issues in the past. While I told her I wasn’t comfortable giving my opinion on account of my position, I informed her of the institutional review and told her I was sure she could request it once completed. While some stakeholders were hesitant to immediately give the same level of trust to ECNetwork as they had in the past, the conduction of the institutional review brought reassurance that the issues which were the cause of ECNetwork’s absence were being addressed so as not to be repeated. One of the largest decisions to come out of the forum was the formation of a national ECED planning team. This planning team would be an expansion of the current working group which had been focused on smaller tasks and event planning. Planning team members were selected to “effectively provide expertise and capacity to implementation of key stages of revitalizing national ECD dialogue processes” (National ECED forum summary document, 2018, pg. 9). This group of government and non-state actors would be responsible for developing a 46 roadmap to coordinate ECED policies and programs in Tanzania. The working group would continue to be the planning body for future meetings. The “Mid” in Mid-Level Coordinating Actor Throughout this dissertation I use the word mandate to refer to ECNetwork’s stated purpose. In ECNetwork’s Organizational Review Report (2019) mandate is defined as “anything formally or informally required of the organization by external actors” both formal legal mandates as well as “informal mandates may be in the form of organizational norms or strong stakeholder expectations” (pg. 21). This review identifies the common understanding of ECNetwork’s mandate—as viewed by civil society organizations (CSOs) and government—as “coordinating the efforts of stakeholders to influence policies and practices on ECD” (pg. 22). This identification of ECNetwork’s role as coordination is at the crux of this study. However, before exploring this, it is essential that we establish who is being coordinated. ECNetwork’s mission as stated in their constitution is to “collaboratively work with other networks, coalitions, institutions, the private sector, the government at all levels, and other potential stakeholders to influence policies, programs and practices related to Early Childhood Development by sharing information, experience and generating knowledge and understanding on ECD and manipulate change towards early investments in young children of 0 – 8 years at all levels in Tanzania” (Reviewer A & Reviewer B, 2019, pg. 21). This mission statement expands the definition of ‘stakeholders’ from the mandate to include a wide variety of groups. These are, however, a lot of stakeholders to be coordinating and it begs the question of where ECNetwork is located. It was clear from discussions in the beginning of my research that a majority of ECNetwork’s coordination was of non-state actors (those of Tanzanian origin are referred to as 47 CSOs, civil society organizations). However, because of the high level of involvement with government stakeholders, it is important to understand how ECNetwork is positioned in the middle of these two worlds of state and non-state actors. As I attempted to understand where ECNetwork fit within existing governmental and non-governmental hierarchies, I first needed to establish what these two parallel hierarchies looked like. Figure 1 shows the hierarchies that were fleshed out during interviews through a card sorting activity. Figure 1: Government and Non-State Actor Hierarchies During observations, and confirmed during interviews, it became clear that the middle- space that ECNetwork occupied was between the Government and CSOs. As one interviewee explained it: When it comes to working together with the government, the CSOs in its issues of ECD, are coming together to the government as an equal partner through 48 [ECNetwork]. [ECNetwork] is now mandated as a national network to coordinate all CSOs—I mean FBOs, NGOs, CBOs, and I talk about the private sector—to come as one cluster and the government through its own structure, to come as another structure. So, it is like a bridge between CSOs and the government. (Moses, interview 1) So, while ECNetwork is mandated to coordinate CSOs on issues of ECED, it is their work as a bridge between CSOs and government that locates them as a MLCA (see Figure 2) and makes them the focus of this analysis. This coordination between the government and non- government is especially important in a context like Tanzania where non-state actors are a large part of the capacity and implementation force. The ability of the government to stay connected and coordinate their goals with the capacity available from non-state actors across the country allows them to continue working towards national goals even as a so called weak-state. Figure 2: ECNetwork as the Bridge Between Government and Non-State Actors 49 With ECNetwork positioned as the MLCA bridging between the Government and non- state actors, this study investigates how the organization carries out its mandated coordination role. Through a detailed examination of the work that this MLCA does, we can begin to understand and complicate what it takes for them to coordinate an ECED system. By making the facets of this work clear, support and capacity building for these actors can be better designed and facilitated. For other countries looking to strengthen the role that their MLCA plays in the ECED system, ECNetwork provides a case study which begins to illuminate the complex and dynamic nature of coordination. 50 CHAPTER 3 STUDY DESIGN Introduction In order to develop an understanding of ECNetwork’s position as a mid-level coordinating actor and the roles that they play while fulfilling their mandate of coordinating non- state early childhood actors, I conducted a case study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008) during the early part of 2019. Using observations, interviews, and document analysis, I investigated the ways in which ECNetwork mediated between the multiple actors, ministries, policies, and formal and informal environments of the ECED system in Tanzania and what roles they took on to do so. This investigation of ECNetwork’s position as a MLCA will inform conceptualizations of a MLCA’s roles within an ECED system and implications for systems-level coordination. I explored coordination both vertically, between national and local levels, as well as horizontally, across ECED sectors, implementing organizations, and ministries where ECED policies reside. Research Questions To develop a rich understanding of the roles ECNetwork enacts as a MLCA, my interviews, observations, and analysis were guided by two main research questions: 1. How does ECNetwork use their position as MLCA to coordinate the Tanzanian ECED system? 2. What roles, competencies, or skills does ECNetwork utilize to increase the coordination of the Tanzanian ECED system? Using these two questions, in my case study I examined the ways that ECNetwork interacted with other stakeholders in the Tanzanian ECED system through observations of their day to day work as well as small and large stakeholder gatherings. This approach, which seeks to 51 define the breadth of ECNetwork’s interactions, is informed by qualitative case study methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017; Merriam, 1988) and network ethnography (Ball, 2016; Bartlett & Vavrus, 2014; Berthod, Grothe-Hammer, & Sydow, 2017). Through these methods I developed a deeper understanding of how ECNetwork established, supported, and maintained their connections with various stakeholders, as well as how these connections impacted the coordination of the Tanzanian ECED system. Case Study Methodology This study is a case of coordination by a mid-level coordinating actor within an ECED system. In order to study this “dynamic social practice” (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman, 2012, pg. 907), I paid particular attention to how ECNetwork connected with others. This included how they built a network of ECED stakeholders, how they engaged with members of that network, and how they utilized those connections in order to coordinate the ECED system. Prior research suggests that specific ways similar organizations coordinate multi-sectoral systems is through bridging between groups and spanning sectoral and organizational contexts (Bertram et al., 2016; Kellogg, Orlikowski, & Yates, 2006). To explore this activity in the case of an early childhood system, I focused not only on ECNetwork, but also on the external links that they have created with stakeholders in the multiple sectors involved in ECED both within government and non-government contexts. This also included connections that are well established as well as those that they are in the process of creating as I view coordination as a social practice that is “under continuous construction” (Jarzabkowski, Lê, & Feldman, 2012, pg. 907), and is responsive and adaptable to changing conditions. In order to make visible the microprocesses that ECNetwork administrators perform, I utilized interviews, observations, and documents to explore the network of connections initiated 52 and sustained by ECNetwork within the ECED system and the roles and competencies utilized to carry out its coordination work. Later in this chapter I will explain each of these methods in detail, but it is important to first understand why I am engaging in case study research and why I utilize each of these methods, their value and what I hoped to learn through each of them. I approach this case study with an interpretivist lens which views knowledge as something that is constructed through asking “how and why people act in certain ways, and exploring the meaning they generate” (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). To do this, I observed ECNetwork personnel their daily activities and interactions with others to see how they acted, and then used interviews in order to question the reasoning and purpose behind the activities and interactions I observed. I found that this both deepened my understanding of what I observed, but also provided my participants with opportunities to reflect and examine their own actions more deeply. I conducted interviews with ECNetwork administrators as well as those they interacted with to understand the different views and interpretations of the same events or activities. In this way, I was able to be aware of and account for multiple perspectives of the same interaction, allowing for more nuance and deeper analysis of the activities that ECNetwork personnel engaged in during their coordination work. Additionally, through examination of historical, organizational, and logistical documents I gained a third perspective of ECNetwork and its activities. I viewed organizational documents as a public representation of ECNetwork’s intended purpose and as an additional tool with which to analyze observations and interviews. Many of these documents were publicly available and provided the stated mission, values, and purposes established by ECNetwork. Approved by ECNetwork administrators and board prior to publication, they reflected the public presentation 53 of the organization. Documents from events and activities prior to my arrival provided a timeline and additional topics for discussions in interviews. Both observations and interviews centered around my time in the ECNetwork office, shadowing the administrators of the organization on a daily basis. The office became the main research site as it is where ECNetwork staff spent most of their time. Because ECNetwork’s main partner, HfC, shared the office suite, most small meetings with fewer than 15 participants were held in the office. Meetings held in venues more appropriate for large groups, outside the main office, were my second research site. Prior Research Although data collected and analyzed for this study was collected over four-months, I had additionally spent a total of five months in Tanzania over the past three years developing an understanding of the early childhood landscape more broadly. During the summer of 2016, I visited and conducted observations in a variety of public and private early childhood settings in the Kilimanjaro region, interviewed teachers in these settings, and was involved in a study to understand the new teacher training policy being implemented in the country (Wilinski, Huy Nguyen, & Landgraf, 2016). The following summer I spent several months in Arusha and Kilimanjaro region studying Kiswahili, gathering and analyzing policy documents, and conducting a study of partnerships between government and non-state actors in the implementation of an early childhood program in Tanzania. This research and experience in Tanzania during two prior trips allowed me to familiarize myself with the context as well as begin to build my own network of relationships. This base of knowledge, as well as in-country connections and relationships, helped me to very quickly establish connections and navigate the different contexts and situations present in this study. 54 Setting the Scene Data collection for this study took place over four months in spring 2019. During this period, I spent seven weeks in intensive observation and shadowing of the focal organization on a daily basis during normal work hours. While this is a relatively short period of time, it occurred during an extremely active period of work for ECNetwork. During the seven-week period I observed there were seven large meetings, one of which was a multi-day meeting. Because there was travel involved for many of these meetings and I would accompany ECNetwork members for these meetings, such events regularly provided additional opportunities to conduct smaller individual or small group conversations. Multiple meetings happened each week of data collection, a table of which can be viewed in Appendix D. The following sections provide descriptions of the main research site, focal organization administrators, and other relevant participants. In my descriptions I use the past tense to signal that these observations are not permanent due to the likelihood that ECNetwork will change over time and because of the short period of time I spent with the organization. Main Research Site Because of the phase of repositioning that ECNetwork was involved in during the time of my data collection, the main research site was a shared office suite between ECNetwork and a partner organization. Within the office suite, there were two meeting rooms and three office spaces. The three office spaces were used for the head of HfC, the financial officer, and the final office space was occupied by three HfC personnel. One of the meeting rooms was allocated to the three staff members of ECNetwork. In this room they all sat around one large meeting table. At one end of the room there was a white board and at the other was a map of Tanzania and another whiteboard propped against the wall. Two sides of this meeting room were contained by 55 half walls/half windows, providing a view out into the office “lobby” and a partial view of the office next door where the partner organization’s financial officer sat. There was a sliding glass door leading to a tiny balcony where several standing whiteboards were stored and the hum of traffic and the occasional siren provided a soundtrack for the workday. The office had many of the technologies that could be found in many office settings. Laptops were the main devices that facilitated work on a day to day basis, supported by cell- phones to encourage faster responses to emails. There were two printers networked for the office, one large and one small. Air-conditioners in each individual office allowed each person to control their preferred temperature and each office had windows that could be opened. Meetings were facilitated with the use of a projector which was connected to the presenter’s computer. There was air-conditioning and Wi-Fi in the office, but power was prone to disruption. It happened that, even though in a large urban center, I experienced far more power outages than during other trips to Tanzania. Because work could only continue if computers had power or a full battery, it was common for staff to try and maintain their laptops on full charge, constantly plugging and unplugging to maintain 100%. I found that most business, both government and otherwise, still relied on hard copies, in part due to the unreliable power. Luckily, even without power, phones still worked. Telephone calls were constant in the office. It was the preferred way of communication for ECNetwork administrators when trying to pass-on, clarify, or gain information. Although there was a landline in the office, all telephone calls were conducted on personal cell phones; I came to find that this increased the probability that who you were calling would pick up, as most of the time the caller was in the other’s phone book. I spent most of my time sitting in the office area with ECNetwork staff as they worked in their designated space, made phone calls, reviewed meeting minutes, and planned for upcoming 56 meetings or events. Although there were times of tension and deadlines, it was a positive work environment and as each staff member arrived, a round of greetings were exchanged. Everyone was doing their jobs, but they were working together, doors open, coming in and out to discuss things or just say hello. The number of people in the office fluctuated, as some of HfC’s staff did a lot of traveling to monitor programs they were currently implementing around the country. On a typical day, in addition to ECNetwork’s three staff members, the other organization had between five and seven employees in the office. Even when everyone was in attendance, the office was quiet most of the day, only changing during lunch when people congregated in the lobby area to partake in the daily lunch service provided by a local woman who prepared a variety of dishes for a flat price. There were periodic visitors that came through, member organizations visited for training, partner organizations and government officials visited for meetings, funding agencies came to get updates on projects. When there was travel within the city, ECNetwork traveled together in Irene’s car, or used the city bus system. Travel, and weather that complicated it, was the main obstacle encountered on a daily basis. During my data collection period, several weeks of rain made the commute to work difficult or just plain impossible for my participants. A few days were spent working remotely, and others were cut short because of the additional time needed to get to and from work. Despite challenges, the rain only delayed work because of the conversation about it. ECNetwork’s Administrative Team ECNetwork had an active administrative core. This team of three was led by Moses. He joined ECNetwork as the Director after the internal management issues left it with no leadership. Edwin joined ECNetwork several years ago, but had been familiar with ECNetwork from its initiation. His official title within the organization was officer for capacity and development. 57 Irene joined ECNetwork just before Edwin. She had been working with organizations focused on children for nearly a decade. Her official position at ECNetwork was as advocacy officer. While all three of these individuals had a different title, everything was a team effort; there was consistent communication during completion of different tasks. They consulted each other daily in order to discuss and make decisions. Commitment of this group seemed high, especially considering that when they joined there was little or no compensation available, making their work in the beginning largely voluntary. While the work that Irene and Edwin did in the beginning was part-time, since the awarding of the grant to revitalize ECNetwork was received everyone is now full time, and no longer working on a voluntary basis. In addition to this administrative core, ECNetwork is overseen by a governing board. The board is made up of five Tanzanians working for member organizations and two Tanzanians working for international partners. This board provides oversight of operations, fundraising, and financial affairs. ECNetwork & HfC Relationship Hope for Children* (HfC) is a key organization in the case study. The relationship between ECNetwork and HfC is close, but the Director of HfC views his organization’s role as supportive, but largely behind the scenes. Interview participants from inside these two organizations, as well as those outside, described the two organizations as having a close partnership. And when I queried about identifying main actors in the ECED system, interviewees regularly positioned both organizations in top spots. This is not surprising because of the important role that HfC had in revitalizing the ECED dialogue in Tanzania. They commissioned the situation report which was the catalyst for repositioning and strengthening ECNetwork; They * This and all other organizations and individuals are pseudonyms. Later in the chapter, I discuss in detail the reasoning behind masking names and identifying characteristics. 58 assisted in acquiring, and now manage, the donor funding that supported ECNetwork’s organizational review process and daily operations. Henry, HfC’s director, views the support that HfC provides to ECNetwork as a continuation of the work they started trying to revitalize the ECED dialogue in the country. The national ECED stakeholders had identified the desire to bring back ECNetwork into its former role during the situation analysis, and HfC wanted to make sure there was the support needed to see it through. [ECNetwork’s] capacity is still extremely weak, and their legitimacy is still extremely fragile; but, still, this provided a potentially unique opportunity to start turning around the perception of the role and platform of ECNetwork once more. It took a major amount of legwork behind it to kind of bring it together. (Henry, interview 1) All of the work that HfC does to support ECNetwork is done in addition to their regular work implementing ECED trainings and programs in several locations in Tanzania. While it is a necessary support mechanism during these early stages of strengthening ECNetwork, HfC sees their help as temporary and in the service of building up the systems and structures needed for ECNetwork’s independence. Interview Participants Although this is a study of an organization, the individuals who make up the personnel of ECNetwork feature prominently. These individuals are the ones who perform the actions in pursuit of the organization’s mandate of coordination. However, in contrast to how many organizations are conceptualized in the literature, ECNetwork is not hierarchical. Because of the limited number of ECNetwork administrators, there was significant overlap in their work 59 responsibilities despite having different work titles. The three individuals who comprise the organization of ECNetwork are Moses the Director, Edwin the Officer for Capacity and Development, and Irene the Advocacy Officer. While ECNetwork is the MLCA organization around which this case study is focused, their position as coordinator of other ECED actors made it essential for me to talk to the network of actors they interacted with. In early childhood systems the network of actors extends beyond the local and national context to include global actors and dialogues. Including actors from the local/micro-, national/meso-, and global/macro-levels (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2014) provided opportunities to understand the ECED system and the coordination activities of ECNetwork from a variety of perspectives. Within their network there are three types of stakeholders to note: government entities, partners, and members. Partners are those organizations which are not based in Tanzania such as international non-governmental organizations (INGOs), UN (global) organizations, and funding organizations such as USAID. Members of ECNetwork are all Tanzanian-based organizations and can fall into several categories: community-based organizations (CBOs), faith-based organizations (FBO), or civil society organizations (CSOs). All three of these categories are generally defined as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). To include both members and partners of ECNetwork in this research I refer to them as non-state actors. When both non-state and government actors are discussed as a group I refer to them as ECED stakeholders. I interviewed all administrators of ECNetwork as well as all members of the HfC as they had daily contact with ECNetwork and attended many of the same meetings and events. To select other actors to interview, I used snowball sampling (Bogdan & Biklen, 2002; Heath, Fuller, & Johnston, 2009). This method of participant selection was ideal, as it relies on 60 connections between actors which is the central focus of this research. During initial interviews with the three ECNetwork administrators and through informal interviews during observations, I generated a list of ECED stakeholders who ECNetwork interacted with regularly or who were important fixtures in the ECED system. The following table (Table 1) lists the number of interview participants, and their affiliation according to the categories of National NGO, International NGO, Global Organization, Other (which includes one university faculty, three journalists, and one consultant), and National Government. ECNetwork HfC Interviews (3 initial, 3 6 final) Local/ National NGOs International NGOs Global Organizations Other National Government 2 6 1 5 4 7 (5 initial, 2 final) Table 1: Number of Interviews by Interview Participant Type Interviews with ECNetwork and HfC included initial interviews as well as follow-up. In the case of two HfC interviewees whom I only interviewed once, I included both initial and follow-up questions as relevant. All interview questions and protocols are included in Appendix B and C. Methods of Generating Data Case study is centered on the desire to understand a particular case both for its “uniqueness and commonality” (Stake, 1995, pg. 1). My case of ECNetwork’s coordination of the Tanzanian ECED system is common in that globally there is a need to understand how this process is carried out by a mid-level coordinating actor, and unique because of the particular contextual and historical factors of Tanzania as a country and ECNetwork as an organization. My questions focus on the actions that ECNetwork takes to coordinate the ECED system. I gain 61 insight into these actions through three sources of information: my own observations of daily activities and events, interviews to gain ECNetwork’s and other ECED system actor’s perspectives and interpretations, and document analysis as a formal written report of organizational purposes and collective accounts of meetings and events. I utilized document analysis throughout the planning, execution, and analysis of the case study of ECNetwork. Documents such as national and international policies, ECNetwork organizational documents, and organizational reports on ECED programs in Tanzania were critical to my baseline understanding of the national ECED context and the mapping of government structures related to ECED. These initial sketches were reference points for discussions I heard during observations and questions I included in interviews. The documents provided me with the knowledge that was available to an outsider, easily accessible through internet searches. These documents allowed me to identify conflicts and questions I would need to explore further to gain a more complete understanding of the context. I chose to use observations because of the need for me to see ECNetwork at work and begin to uncover how the organization’s different activities were related to the goal of ECED coordination. Observation allowed me to gain a visual reference to answer my question of how ECNetwork uses their position to do the work of coordination (RQ#1). Through observation I witnessed ECNetwork’s work and noted the different ways ECNetwork personnel interacted with various stakeholders, the contextual factors that may have impacted how it negotiated particular situations, and build a list of the other actors that ECNetwork came into contact with (RQ#2). These observations relied on my ability as the researcher to interpret what I saw. Any assertions that I made from what I observed needed to be ‘unpacked’ during interviews. 62 Interviews built on my observational data by adding depth to my account of an event, gaining different perspectives of the same observation, and enhancing my contextual understanding through relating my observations to other unobserved interviewee experiences. In turn, as I interviewed participants my observations of events became sharper as I could recognize commonalities from previous discussions as well as instances which deviated from prior interpretations. These deviations brought me back to formal and informal interviewing to further expand my comprehension of the case. The more and varied types of participants I could interview added to the interpretations and perspectives I gained on individual issues and interactions. This was critical to developing a dynamic understanding of coordination which considered both insider (ECNetwork) and outsider (other ECED stakeholders) views on the ways ECNetwork used their position as MLCA to coordinate, and what that coordination entails depending on who they were interacting with (RQ#1). For example, coordination of government stakeholders may look different and require different skills than coordination of network members who were implementing ECED programs (RQ#2). This also allowed for coordination activities to be discussed with both the coordinator and those they were coordinating. By going back to documents, I reviewed meeting sign-in sheets and event reports to identify participants who I hadn’t come across during my observations. These actors, whether through formal or informal interviews, may provide additional perspectives which would strengthen what had already been discovered or add new insights into the ways that ECNetwork interacts with and coordinates the broad range of actors in the Tanzanian ECED system. 63 For each of the following methods, I describe in detail how I carried them out. I discuss the types of interviews I conducted, the locations and types of events I formally observed, what I learned from informal observations, and my process of collecting and reviewing documents. Interviews I used a semi-structured interview protocol (Bernard, 2018) with all interviewees and in addition used several activities to elicit information. First, for interviewees from ECNetwork and HfC I asked them to draw a timeline of significant events which led to the current increase in ECED dialogue and the repositioning of ECNetwork. This allowed participants to reflect on the past and put together a semi-causal narrative they believe helped to shape the current ECED context in Tanzania. In order to understand a larger group of stakeholders than what the interviewee initially might have mentioned, I created a deck of cards with stakeholder names on them. I created the deck based on initial interviews with ECNetwork staff and a list of stakeholders in attendance at a national ECED forum early in the year. As a part of this activity I would also ask participants to tell me if there were any important ECED stakeholders that I should add to the deck. Using these cards, I asked interviewees to organize them into groups based on how they fit into the process of coordinating national ECED policies and programs. I began this activity by saying a version of the following: There’s no right or wrong way to do this, but I made a bunch of cards. I started with the organizations and ministries that attended the December stakeholder’s forum, and then every time I have someone go through these, they might have something to add, so the pile has grown. So, if you just look through it and think about how the early childhood development system is set up in Tanzania, different roles these actors might have, who has similar roles. Like I said there is 64 no right or wrong way, some people kind of do a map, some people do rows, some people do piles. So just look through them and see what starts to form in your mind. (Example interview transcript excerpt) Toward the end of my time in country, I conducted follow-up interviews with key members of ECNetwork and HfC in order to delve deeper into initial themes developed from observations and initial interviews. These interviews were shorter and focused on discussing events and topics encountered through the research process. I conducted ongoing informal interviews with ECNetwork throughout my stay. I kept record of these interviews in my daily observational notebook, including direct quotes when possible. I used these informal interviews to verify observations, check my own interpretations of events and understanding, get elaboration of processes observed, and ask follow-up questions. Observations Observations began at the ECNetwork headquarters in Dar es Salaam, and went beyond to include meetings ECNetwork held or attended with stakeholders. During observations, I used informal interviewing (Bogdan & Biklen, 2002) to help gather information from ECNetwork administrators and those they connected with to document specifics related to initiation, purpose, and frequency of interactions with stakeholders. I used informal interviews to elicit responses as close to the event of interest as possible, so that I could avoid errors in recall from the participants. My observations moved from descriptive and general observations into more focused observations of office work and outside meetings and observations of activities where a large number of ECED stakeholders were present (Spradley, 1980). Observing these larger events helped me to interact with and select participants for interviews. Additionally, lunches and breaks during these large meetings provided opportunities to observe stakeholders 65 interacting on a personal level. I took note of the mingling that happened during breaks and noticed the groups that formed during meals to identify previous relationships outside of one’s own organization or new introductions that were being made (See Appendix D for a full list of my observations). To provide structure to my observations, I created an observational protocol (See Appendix C). While not my only observational record, this protocol helped me to focus my observations on actions and interactions between ECNetwork personnel and others. This was particularly useful at large meetings where I may only visually see an interaction and needed a quick way to note general observations. The protocol included spaces for who was observed, what activities were occurring, time, date, location. These helped me to note specific events that I wanted to revisit during my daily reflective fieldnotes and bring up later during interviews. To help identify what type of interaction was occurring between the MLCA and others I used definitions of different types of roles conceptualized by Williams (2011) in his framework of Boundary Spanners (Connectors, Entrepreneurs, Interpreters/Communicators, Organizers). This limited categorization helped me to notice actions and interactions which fit within roles described in the literature as well as note those which were different and may need to be added to my analysis. From these observational notes I could begin to identify the roles, competencies, and skills they utilized (RQ#2), how ECNetwork’s position as MLCA gained them access to situations, and in what way this access and subsequent actions impacted the coordination of the system (RQ#1). Informal Observations Informal observations were plentiful during my time in Dar es Salaam, both during research activities and in the normal course of my day outside of research. I took lessons from 66 each of these experiences and they informed how I conducted my research and made connections with participants. I made observations about how the bureaucratic system works, the importance of relationships in every aspect of life, and what patience really is. During my research clearance process, I was able to get first-hand experience and observe the bureaucratic system in Tanzania. I made countless visits to check on progress of my application, signing in and out of government buildings and explaining and reexplaining why I was there. Lack of digital platforms made these visits necessary, as I had learned in a previous trip, and I made sure that I didn’t get lost in the piles of paperwork and files which filled these offices. I lived with several other graduate researchers and I would return home after these visits and debrief with them. We would commiserate, swap stories, and share advice on how to speed the process up. One of my roommates was working with a UN organization for her research and offered to ask her supervisor for advice on how I could get information about when my clearance would be reviewed. She introduced me to him at a conference I attended with her. He didn’t hesitate and immediately pulled out his cell phone and called his contact—who I later found out was in charge the department that oversaw research clearances—made his greeting, explained the reason for his call, and asked for information about my clearance. I got more information in those five minutes than I had in the three weeks when I had made five visits. I took no connection or relationship for granted in Tanzania. I did my best to not only utilize these connections, but also to be a connection for others when I knew someone or something that would be helpful. Even once I had information about the date that my clearance would be reviewed, I learned that these dates are not set in stone. The date that I had been given initially kept getting 67 pushed as other planned events took the reviewers away from their normal business. I didn’t understand how a large event, which obviously had to be planned for in advance, wasn’t considered when I was given a date. This happened several times. Even when I was given a time to come to the office and pick up my clearance paperwork, I had to wait nearly two hours for a meeting to conclude. All of these experiences made me curious about how ECNetwork and others who partner with government handle the pace of government processes. Was what I encountered at the research clearance office a reflection of the norm? I noted the significance of relationships in navigating the system, how a date set is a plan not a promise, that progress is slow, and patience really is a virtue. Field Notes Throughout fieldwork activities I kept reflective fieldnotes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2002) in order to maintain a record of in the moment observations, connections, and ideas prompted by interviews and observations. These field notes included both informational notes, records of who was present, personal reflection notes, as well as relevant sketches or photo references. Each night upon returning from the field, I spent time expanding these fieldnotes, transferring them from handwritten notes to a digital document. This expansion included narratives about the day’s activities (especially related to how the MLCAs interact with others), follow-up questions or clarification questions to ask key actors, and my own thoughts and reflections. In expanding my fieldnotes, I was able to review the day, recall how I was feeling at different times in reaction to particular situations, take note of things that stood out, and write a more complete narrative of the activities of the day, including anecdotal quotes within context where possible. These notes allowed me to continuously analyze across all the data I gathered and build understanding 68 gradually over time. It also provided a way to keep track of specific connections to policy, literature, and theory that I later used for more detailed analyses (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 2011). Documents In addition to observations and interviews, I collected documents which related to ECNetwork as organization—organizational constitutions, mission statements, project reports, and meeting minutes, national policies, and official summary reports of national meetings. I was also able to look at documents such as meeting attendance records which provided insight into the interactions ECNetwork has had with ECED stakeholders over time. I accessed these documents a variety of ways. First, documents directly related to ECNetwork were provided for me by ECNetwork. These documents were either hard copies that were available for anyone to take or organizational documents which I was allowed to copy or photograph. Second, I accessed national level policy as PDF documents through web searches, which I then confirmed as the most recent and relevant policies during informal interviews and daily conversations. Third, I obtained official meeting summaries—which go through a validation process with meeting attendees—from ECNetwork and HfC through email. Additionally, during daily observations and conversations Moses, Edwin, and Irene would share documents with me that they were reviewing so that I could follow along. One such example was when they discussed recently published national plans which they hoped to use as a guide to their current work in ECED. As they discussed their thoughts, Moses asked if I had the PDF of the plan. When I said no, he emailed the report directly to me so I could read it and understand their conversation. I approached my review of documents from the perspective of them being cleaned up versions of reality. I took this view because of the large amount of time that I witnessed being 69 spent reviewing reports and meeting minutes by ECNetwork for approval before publication. Because even reports by a third parties needed to be approved before they became official, it is likely that these were reflections of the public persona they sought. Therefore, interviews, and observations in particular, were critical to my analysis of these documents. Through documents I accessed an initial understanding of policies, practices, and events. Through interviews and observations, I gained the more nuanced ‘rough around the edges’ reality. A majority of these documents were written in English, however, ECNetwork’s constitution was only available in Kiswahili. Because I couldn’t translate this document with perfect accuracy, I mainly used this document as a reference to identify how ECNetwork had been positioned in the past and to identify a written representation of the organization’s ‘mandate’ which was frequently referenced in interviews and conversations. Additionally, the constitution document was from 2014 which meant it was written under the former ECNetwork administration and would soon be updated as a result of their organizational review processes. Positionality Prior to and throughout data collection, it was important for me to continually reflect and make decisions related to my positionality within the case I wanted to study. Dyson and Genishi (2005) recommend that researchers reflect on both “our behaviors at the research site in terms of our actions and our developing relationships with the participants [as well as] particular aspects of our selves that influence the lenses we look through” (pg. 57). This is a necessary process in all research, but especially in qualitative research where the researcher is more likely to have an impact on the data that they collect. 70 Arriving in Tanzania for four months for data collection, I had to spend time processing government-required research clearance*. I spent a lot of time waiting. I chose to utilize this time familiarizing myself with the context and beginning to develop relationships with participants. Hoping to minimize the impact my eventual everyday presence would have on “business as usual,” I spent several short periods of time at the main research site making introductions and keeping people up to date on my research clearance progress. During these times I was invited to come and spend time in the office doing other work, as participants recognized that without official clearance I wouldn’t start my research, but they asked me to feel welcome. Because I was aware of the possible issues that could arise from seeing or hearing something related to my research before I was allowed to gather data, I chose to work from my home-base, but took several opportunities to stop by the office and update them on my clearance process and get updates on their timelines which would help me to better prepare and plan once I was able to begin formal data collection. The power differentials that existed between myself and my participants were multi- faceted and each needed reflection and attention. I was asking for their contribution to my research, but I had to decide how much and in what form I could contribute to their work. In fear that I would impact the meetings and interactions that were at the heart of my research questions, I chose not to be a participant observer. Rather, I quietly observed in hopes that my impact would be minimal. This did, however, mean that the benefit of my presence was often mine alone. Knowing that this would be the case, I had conversations with ECNetwork administrators at the beginning of my study, explained to them how I planned to do my research, and asked that they feel free to ask if there was anything that I could do to help them in return. This help * This research clearance is required for all research conducted in Tanzania. 71 evolved over the course of the study and included proof-reading meeting minutes and reports, providing shortened versions of my notes from meeting proceedings to supplement what Irene had been able to record, and accompanying staff as they ran errands and set up for meetings. In addition, all of my participants voiced interest in seeing my findings when my dissertation was complete, especially ECNetwork, HfC, and government officials. I had planned on returning to Dar es Salaam to present my findings in person this coming summer, but that has been put on hold until issues of health safety are resolved. As a woman, I wanted to make sure that my appearance was culturally appropriate to show respect and deference to the context I was in and not provoke any unwanted attention. Although many women in Tanzania are now wearing shorter skirts and pants, because I wasn’t sure of the cultural and religious beliefs of my participants I wanted to err on the side of caution. Therefore, I always wore a long skirt and modest top. I also felt that it was most respectful choice because my research took place during Ramadan. Once my data collection began, I didn’t want to be viewed as a single-minded researcher, only there to get the data I needed and then disappear. I had keen awareness of the ongoing research by development organizations and other ‘outsiders’ that was constant in Tanzania and other SSA countries. During prior research in Tanzania, those assisting me in setting up my research observations and interview participants were hyper-concerned with me ‘getting what I wanted’ and I had to remind them that I was there to observe and learn from them. For this case study I spent more time upfront explaining how and why I was doing the research and expressing my genuine curiosity about and appreciation for the work that they did. I delayed initial interviews with the focal organization administrators until I had had a full week of observations. Although not a lot of time, I noticed that over that week less discussion was happening in 72 Kiswahili, and more in English. This change was explained to me by one of the administrators as coming from a desire to make sure I wasn’t lost and knew what was going on. When conversations drifted back into Kiswahili, it was usually followed by an explanation of what was said; these conversations were usually phone calls to partners during planning processes. I took this openness as a sign of my participant’s desire to keep me in the loop. While I am sure there were things that I missed, or weren’t communicated to me, I believe that ECNetwork administrators were as open as possible during my stay. ECNetwork’s openness was shown during interviews when they shared their experiences with me. Although I was asked not to quote some information, their willingness to provide me a complete picture of events and circumstances helped me to understand the history and context of the case I was studying. Similar to how I approached my focal interview participants, I made every attempt to delay asking for interviews from people or organizations outside of the focal organization until I met them in the normal course of ECNetwork’s work. I waited to request interviews with outside organizations until I had the occasion to be introduced by someone from the focal organization and spent some time casually interacting with them or attending meetings where they were present. Holding off interviews until we had a common experience allowed for natural introductions to occur and shared points of reference for discussion during interviews. Once I had met and had casual conversations with someone I was interested in interviewing I would ask if they would be comfortable having an interview with me. This provided an extended amount of time for the future interviewee to ask questions, feel comfortable, and choose a time and place that they preferred. By doing this, my intention was to remove some of the awkwardness and stiffness that tends to be present between researcher and interviewee. By trying to build a natural connection first, I hoped to foster more honest interpretations of situations I asked about and 73 more free flowing conversation where the interviewee felt comfortable expressing their ideas and thoughts openly and not only discussing my questions directly. Whether this worked was particularly apparent when I asked at the end of interviews, “is there anything else you think is important for me to know about ECED in Tanzania?” Most of the people I interviewed had something they wanted to mention beyond the questions I had posed. Particularly during observations of meetings and events, I had to make clear my positionality as researcher. Meetings and events were often very participatory and I was asked to join in or take part in discussion and small group activities. For example, at one meeting groups were asked to create and perform a skit to convey the results of their group’s discussion of an ideal ECED future in Tanzania. I felt that my participation would impact what took place in small groups or results of discussions. Thus, I would always thank them for offering but remind them that I was there to observe and learn from them. To show my detachment from activities or discussions I would sit outside of the main circle or pull my chair away from the group to make clear I was not a full participant. Throughout my multiple visits to Tanzania, my identity and credentials as an early childhood educator and scholar have been helpful in positioning me as a knowledgeable, engaged, and invested member of the ECED community. Each time I was introduced by others, my involvement as a teacher and researcher in ECED was highlighted and served as an initial connection and representation of my understanding and commitment to the field. This part of my identity, however, did mean that I was often asked to add my opinion or advice. I tried to avoid this when it conflicted with my observations during meetings and small groups, as I felt that it would alter the natural discussion that were already happening and were important for my understanding of the work ECNetwork was doing. When my response was solicited I replied that 74 I was there to learn and was more interested in what they had to say from their experience. It was clear that this was quickly understood and respected, especially by ECNetwork. After explaining the importance of being free to observe and record my notes while others are participating to Irene, she began responding to offers for me to join in before I could. Having made two previous trips to Tanzania to conduct research and study Kiswahili, I had acquired an initial understanding of the process that was required to gain access to government officials. In my experience I had learned that gaining access to government officials, particularly high-level officials was difficult as an outsider. Although my position as an American academic and researcher afforded me more access than the average visitor, without an introduction or referral from an insider like administrators from ECNetwork, I would have difficulty arranging interviews. These introductions were crucial both in my ability to conduct interviews, but also in how I would be met when I arrived. In the past, the introductions my research participants had provided to government officials was mixed. When an introduction and explanation of what I was doing in Tanzania was vague, government officials I was set to interview had to make assumptions, and were wary of my intentions. One such instance during my trip in 2017 led to the official assuming I was there to evaluate them and no amount of explaining was sufficient to make him comfortable enough to allow an interview. Knowing the repercussions of poor initial introductions, the time that I took to allow ECNetwork to understand my plans and intentions, as well as know me as a person, helped them to provide detailed introductions to everyone I met during my case study. An obvious part of my positionality that impacted my research is my whiteness and nationality as an American. These aspects of who I am as a researcher were highlighted most profoundly in past research when I visited local pre-primary and primary schools. In these spaces 75 I stood out could observe the novelty that I presented as students craned their necks and stood on tiptoe to see me out their classroom windows. Here, these two parts of my positionality afforded me the privilege of access and the honor of being a welcomed guest. During this case study, as I had experienced in previous observations of NGO spaces in Tanzania, I was far less obvious than I was in a school setting. The NGO and development community in Tanzania, as in many parts of the world, is dotted with White, western expats. None of the meetings that I attended during my field research, and even the office I was based in, were completely Tanzanian. This meant that the larger the meeting, the less out of place I looked. During two different large stakeholder meetings, without an introduction to say otherwise I could be perceived as just another NGO representative. It was hard to assume in any meeting that all attendees even spoke Kiswahili, as several other African nations were represented in the expat community. Therefore, in most meetings English was the preferred language, only switching to Kiswahili when it was confirmed that all in attendance were comfortable. The privilege of having English become the language of meetings highlighted the power that outsiders had in these situations. Despite being a minority of the attendees, even one non-Kiswahili-speaker would trigger a shift in language. I was keenly aware of the impact that my presence had on meetings where it was me that was the lone non- fluent individual. When not in meetings, during smaller conversations, Kiswahili was more prevalent. I was not made privy to these conversations unless the speaker perceived it as relevant to me or my research. If I appeared interested, one of the ECNetwork administrators would give me a summary after the fact, but I likely missed some of the interpersonal conversations which pertained to relationship development and informal interactions between ECNetwork staff and other stakeholders. 76 As I began to gather data and do initial analyses, I planned follow-up interviews to serve as member checking. These interviews allowed me to present my initial understandings of system structures, discuss the big ideas I had taken from meetings, and revisit quotes from interviews that I wanted to make sure I was understanding the meaning as intended or clarify. Particularly because of the language differences, I felt that it was necessary to check in from time to time during data collection and make sure my assessments were in line with my participants’. In these interviews, participants often focused on making sure that I understood the difficulty that all actors in the system—whether government or non-state—had in transmitting information to and receiving information from other parts of the system. It was clear from the points that interviewees reiterated that they saw the widespread need for coordination and recognized their place in accomplishing it. To provide additional perspective and critical feedback on my initial analysis in country, I planned an informal interview with a consultant, Rehema, who had been working with ECNetwork and other government and non-government organizations in various capacities for years. At the time of my research, she had been facilitating the meetings that ECNetwork and the government were holding to plan for work on the ECED national plan. I spent several hours with her going over the same interview questions I had asked my participants, gaining her outside perspective, validating timelines, and asking questions about her experience working with different stakeholders in the current process and previous processes. Because Rehema has worked as a consultant and facilitator for national, international, and global organizations, her perspective was insightful in understanding the dynamics between these groups and understanding their different ways of working. This was particularly useful in helping me to appreciate the vast number of systems that ECNetwork has to navigate in their position and the knowledge they have to accumulate over time. 77 Limitations Limitations of this research are important to note, particularly because of my positionality as an outsider in several ways. First, my whiteness was likely the first thing that many of those involved in my research noticed. Along with whiteness comes a long history of colonialism and continued involvement through development aid. I have spent the last several years working to build rapport with members of the NGOs I worked with during this research. Through this, I was introduced to new contacts and provided details of my education and work history. I will always be a white, but I hoped to lessen its impact on my research in the field through extended time spent with individuals, history of positive working relationships, and honest curiosity about the work these organizations do. Similarly, my position more generally as a foreigner also impacted my research. This position seemed to garner the most questions and elicit the most comments and curiosity. ECNetwork administrators and interviewees periodically seemed self-conscious of the way things were done or looked in Tanzania and would make comments or ask how it was different in my country. In these situations, I tried to note the differences but also point out the wealth of similarities. I also wanted to encourage conversation, so I welcomed these questions. These side discussions often led me to learn new information and gain rapport with participants. Secondly, as a researcher, I may have been viewed as someone to be cautious of. Researchers, especially in LMIC contexts, might be met with hesitation from their participants because of past experience with other researchers, or worry that they are being evaluated. Therefore, it may be more likely that I was exposed to more positive information during interviews and observations. I mitigated this potential limitation by spending extended amounts of time with ECNetwork, joining them during their daily routines, and talking with people outside of the focal organization to gain different perspectives and a richer understanding. 78 I have intermediate proficiency in Kiswahili, I am not a native speaker. While my ability to speak Kiswahili helped to build rapport, my language limitations impacted my ability to conduct and interpret interviews in Kiswahili. To avoid multiple levels of interpretation and possible loss of original meaning, I therefore conducted interviews in English. While it put less limits on the questions and follow-up questions I asked, it could have limited the responses from my participants because they were not native English speakers. I chose to use English in interviews because I felt that it had fewer limitations than multiple rounds of translation, where meaning could be lost or misinterpreted. All of the participants that I interviewed had equally high proficiency in English. As they all worked in development in one form or another, they were used to conducting much of their business in English. This likely lessened the impact of my decision to conduct interviews in English. I also felt like this was an appropriate decision because most meetings took place in English because of the presence of non-Kiswahili speakers which worked for various organizations (Some spoke other African languages as well as French, German, or Italian). In addition to the impact of being a non-native Kiswahili speaker on interviews, it had a larger an impact on my observations. Because some of what I observed took place in Kiswahili, I may have missed information that could have been helpful to building my understanding of ECNetwork as they interacted with other stakeholders. To limit the impact this had, I took observational notes of interactions and noted where I needed to follow-up to clarify or learn more about a situation. I largely turned to Irene for this as she was responsible for taking meeting minutes and often offered up information without my asking. Additionally, during large meetings conducted in Kiswahili, I sat next to the ECNetwork personnel who was taking minutes in English which allowed me to get the main ideas from discussions and better follow along. 79 However, being a part of the focal network in this study, Irene was more likely to offer an explanation that portrayed ECNetwork in a positive and proactive light. To account for this, I tried to discuss situations and meetings with multiple participants during formal and informal interviews in order to gain additional perspectives. Analyzing data To prepare interview data for analysis I transcribed each interview into a word document using a transcription software to slow down the recordings. I transcribed without changing any words from local Tanzanian English patterns in order to stay faithful to what people said. Each of the following analysis chapters provides description of the relevant analytic process. I describe each in more detail in the individual chapters. However, generally, I utilized several analysis techniques which allowed me to explore data both deductively and inductively. MaxQDA, a qualitative data analysis software facilitated inductive and deductive coding of interview transcripts. During my inductive coding, I utilized process or action coding. According to Saldaña (2016), this type of coding is ideal to use when searching “for the routines and rituals of human life, plus the rhythm as well as changing and repetitive forms of action-interaction plus the pauses and interruptions that occur when persons act or interact for the purpose of reaching a goal or solving a problem” (Saldana, 2016, pg. 111). This method of coding helped to capture the actions that might be associated with possible roles ECNetwork might play as MLCA within the ECED system. Through this coding I was able to identify the types of actions and interactions ECNetwork participated in and begin to group them together into broader themes or roles. Coupled with process coding, I used a deductive framework which matched well with the MLCA concept and offered a more detailed description of possible roles they might play. This 80 framework was created by Williams (2002) to conceptualize his boundary spanner. Within this framework there are four main roles and each of these roles has several competencies that make it up. Each of these concepts is described in more detail in Chapter 4, and were the starting point for my conceptualization of MLCA within an ECED system. While the boundary spanner framework was just a foundation on which to build my own understanding, it gave me a useful reference when trying to understand the work of ECNetwork. Williams’ framework has the purpose of defining “the role and nature of boundary spanners – a dedicated cadre of people who operate within collaborative arenas; to identify the particular skills and competencies that they exhibit; and to reflect on the tensions and ambiguities that they face in their everyday work” (pg. 26). For MLCA’s this boundary spanning focuses on coordination. While most discuss coordination as a role, I utilize Williams as a starting point to help disentangle the “work of coordination” through exploration of the roles and competencies which are highlighted through this framework in the cross-actor, boundary spanning that is crucial to ECNetwork’s coordination mandate. Throughout the preparation, study design, data collection, and analysis of my dissertation research I considered several frameworks which might be useful to help organize and explain my findings. Because there had been no published studies specifically looking at coordination by MLCAs in ECED systems I explored a framework of coordinating actors in pediatric care coordination (Antonelli et al., 2009), an analysis of the function of coordination of ECED in two countries (Baudelot et al., 2003), and a review of frameworks focused on brokers within networks (Long, Cunningham, & Braithwaite, 2013). Each of these examples in the literature provided insight into the various types of coordinating actors that have been studied and the differing groups and individuals their coordination impacts. There were similarities that could be 81 found within all of the frameworks I considered as well as differences which influenced my ultimate choice for this study. A number of studies have investigated the coordination in early childhood health done by care coordinators (Antonelli et al., 2009; Appleton et al., 1997; Lipkin et al., 2005). These care coordinators, like MLCAs have to navigate a complex system and bridge between service and care providers. Like Williams’ (2011) framework, these frameworks were developed in healthcare contexts and all aimed to make visible the complex task of coordination each actor is addressing. However, the literature and frameworks available from care coordination were focused on work done to coordinate care for a single or small group of individuals. Similarly, the examples of competencies utilized in the coordination of care were too specific and not mappable onto the systems level, and multi-sector context of ECED. For example, in the study by Antonelli et al. (2009) the competencies were specific to and often referenced health care contexts and interacting at the family or patient level. While comparing many of Williams’ competencies and Antonelli et al.’s competencies there were similarities—focus on communication, partnerships, planning, integration of knowledge--William’s framework didn’t use language that limited the context or level of coordination that it could be applied to. The fact that Williams’ framework allowed for a variety of actor types (individual, organization, network, group) to be conceptualized as a boundary spanner was important for my exploration of ECNetwork. This was in part because of the continued work that will be needed to explore MLCAs in other ECED systems around the world. This study of ECNetwork is the first step in a process to understand the different forms MLCAs may take and how various cultural and contextual factors influence the utilization of different roles and competencies during their ECED system coordination work. 82 Baudelot et al.’s study (2003) to understand the function of coordination of early childhood education and care provision underscored the importance of relationships to the work of coordinators. Although the focus of Baudelot et al.’s study (2003) was narrow and limited to coordination at the local level, it was similar in to Williams’ in that relationships and interpersonal skills were central to the ability of coordinators or boundary spanners to perform their competencies. Because MLCAs boundary spanning might not be limited to a single level any initial limiting of the location where their coordination work might take place would limit my exploration and understanding. Additionally, Baudelot et al.’s study was a survey analysis, relying on individual coordinator’s self-reported activity and didn’t include subsequent follow-up questioning of these statements or observation to gather additional insight. The coordination by MLCAs in ECED systems has many purposes such as coordination of people, information, and activities. Therefore, frameworks which looked at actors involved in bridging or boundary spanning for one particular purpose were too limiting. An example of this was a review by Long, Cunningham, & Braithwaite (2013) which focused on the “bridges, brokers, and boundary spanners who facilitate transactions and the flow of information between people or groups” (pg. 1). Although a comprehensive review, the narrow focus on the ‘coordination of information’ lessened the usefulness of this study for my purpose of exploring a broad range of coordination roles and competencies. However, Long et al.’s (2013) review emphasized the work that brokers or coordinators do to span different types of gaps “such as geographic location, cognitive or cultural gap such as differing disciplines or professions or…the gap may be that members of one party have no basis on which to trust the other” (pg. 1). This emphasis is shared by Williams’ framework, and although Long’s review is limited by the focus on information coordination, the reasons that information coordination is difficult is well defined 83 and is easily shifted when discussing the difficulty of coordinating the additional areas Williams uses—people and policy. All these considerations led me to consider Williams’ framework as my starting point. However, choosing to utilize Williams’ framework—created by a white, western scholar—as an analysis tool to explore coordination in a non-western context warrants discussion. Particularly as a white western scholar myself, this choice of framework limits the initial perspectives considered during observation and analysis. The roles and competencies that make up the work of boundary spanning discussed in the literature were also developed through the examination of western cases. To attempt to account for these limitations and broaden the understanding of these roles and competencies beyond the white western perspective, I began my analysis with initial action coding of interviews and observations prior to the final decision to use Williams’ categories. Although I still ultimately relied on my own meaning making, through using my participant’s words and understanding of coordination I hoped to find a middle ground. To continue analyzing beyond coding, I wrote analytic memos (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014) to document my thinking process, synthesize codes and develop a deeper understanding of particular themes found during the analysis process. These memos helped spark deeper analysis of how the defined roles and competencies combine and benefit the work of ECNetwork beyond the commonly understood mandate of coordination. Confidentiality I altered my research methods and write-up in order to protect individual and group confidentiality. While I have assigned pseudonyms to all participants and organizations, I felt it was important to protect the confidentiality of those involved in my study beyond this first step. Because of the current political climate in Tanzania which is wary of civil society, I wanted to 84 protect my participants, to the best of my ability, from being identified and negatively impacted by their participation. The fact that this study is related to national policy makes it more likely to be of interest to government and the protection of civil-society participants is therefore priority. Additional steps to protect participants include omission of identifiable characteristics such as official title, and in the case of government, the ministry or department they belong to. Additionally, to further assure confidentiality the titles of meetings, conferences, and other gatherings have also been changed. This included altering the titles of documents produced as a result of these gatherings and the titles and authors of referenced papers which could be used to identify participants and organizations. During interviews, there were times when participants shared information with me that they thought was necessary for me to better understand current contexts, but they didn’t want me to quote them or give details in my write-up. In those cases, I didn’t transcribe recordings verbatim, and instead summarized and noted the restriction of the information. Because of the large amount of time that I spent with administrators of the focal organization outside of the normal workday during travel, I had to take care to not let my role as a researcher be forgotten. During meals I didn’t take notes. Rather, if a topic was discussed that related to my research, I would bring it back up later in interviews (both formal and informal). Conclusion In this dissertation I have chosen to focus on the interactions and activities that ECNetwork engages in to coordinate the Tanzanian ECED system. Examining how this MLCA bridges between state and non-state actors and spans sectors, my analysis provides a richer and more complex framework for thinking about the work involved in the coordination activities of an MLCA. In Chapter 4, I use Williams’ framework to explore the roles and competencies which 85 make up the dynamic process ECNetwork engages in to carry out their coordination of the Tanzanian ECED system. In Chapter 5, as a result of the data I’ve analyzed, I extend this framework to consider an additional type of activity which enhances coordination within the ECED system. 86 CHAPTER 4 MORE THAN COORDINATION Introduction Studies specific to early childhood education and development (ECED) have focused on the term ‘coordination’ when describing the crucial, but often underdeveloped, process in ECED systems around the world (Britto et al., 2013; Kagan et al., 2015). Although noted as a critical part of a well-functioning and effective ECED system, it is unclear what exactly coordination entails, particularly at the level between national structures and local structures. Coordination has been the focus of much research in organizational studies, where theories abound, but there is “still some confusion about its meaning…and too little knowledge about its practice” (Alexander, 1993). Perhaps the most closely related coordination context to ECED is found in healthcare and early childhood disability studies. There, actors at the heart of these two fields of study are often referred to as care coordinators. However, the practice of coordination in these other fields tends to focus on coordination of care for individuals rather than the largescale coordination of a multisectoral system such as in ECED. Therefore, even looking at studies that have gone in depth to understand what coordination looks like in practice (Appleton et al., 1997; Harbin et al., 2004; Lipkin et al., 2005) only provides a starting point for understanding a MLCA in ECED. There are few comparisons available to assist in developing a deeper understanding of what coordination involves and looks like in practice for an MLCA in an ECED system. This is problematic. Large scale studies on ECED systems have pointed to coordination as a process that needs to be improved if these systems are to function at their highest efficiency, providing all families and children with the services and programs they need to reach their full developmental 87 potential (Hirokazu Yoshikawa et al., 2018). In order for ECED systems to take steps to address challenges in coordination, it is necessary to investigate and develop a comprehensive understanding and descriptive analysis of what coordination involves. Through the development of a framework which details the processes involved in coordination and categorizes the actions of coordination into defined roles and competencies, countries can take steps to designate an actor, organization, or government department, to fulfill these roles and act as the MLCA within their ECED system. By identifying specific roles and competencies necessary for carrying out coordination, countries can work to build the capacities necessary for their MLCA to improve the coordination within their system, thus strengthening overall system function in the hopes of improving outcomes and boosting service efficiency and effectiveness. Within ECED systems, coordination is critical to connect the multiple sectors and actors developing policy and programs, budgeting for implementation, and providing services. Coordination of these requires working across sectors (spanning) and connecting actors who normally don’t interact directly (bridging). While actors who provide such coordination have been identified in ECED systems before—boundary spanning entities (Berlinski & Schady, 2015)—there has been little investigation of them beyond where they are positioned in the system and a general description of their activities. To begin building a deeper understanding of how coordination is carried out by an MLCA, like Chile and Columbia’s boundary spanning entities, I look to a framework developed by Williams (2002) in which he conceptualizes an actor termed boundary spanner. In his research, Williams (2011) developed a framework which outlined roles observed during his research of boundary spanners in health and social care. He described these individuals as “a valuable and distinctive class of ‘actor’, operating within intra- and inter-sectoral collaborative environments, including partnerships, alliances, networks, 88 consortia and forms of integration” (Williams, 2011, pg. 26). The similarity between boundary spanners and MLCAs made this framework an ideal starting point for my investigation into an MLCA within an ECED system. I chose this framework as an initial way to categorize actions I observed. When it matched well with the inductive “action” codes I applied to interview transcripts, I used it as a deductive coding framework. Within Williams’ framework, a boundary spanner has four main roles: Reticulist, Entrepreneur, Interpreter, and Organizer. Under each of these roles Williams identifies a set of competencies which allowed for the complexity and breadth of each role category to be better understood and recognized. In this chapter, I utilize Williams’ framework to discuss the role of ECNetwork. Drawing on observations, interviews, and documents, I explore the complexity of the coordination activities they engage in through discussion of competencies they utilized to carry out and fulfill the four roles. First, I describe how ECNetwork in their role of Reticulist develops and utilizes diplomacy and political skills; builds a network of connections with ECED stakeholders in Tanzania and beyond; communicates and interprets information to system actors; and manages the many responsibilities they have as MLCA to different types of actors in the ECED system. Second, I show how ECNetwork in their role as Entrepreneur negotiates between actors and helps to find solutions to issues that arise in the ECED system; decides when and to whom these issues should be brought. Third, I explain how ECNetwork through their role as Interpreter works to build relationships; communicates and helps others to understand and interpret system information; and builds trust with all the stakeholders they interact with. Fourth, I describe how ECNetwork in their role of Organizer utilizes the planning, coordinating, and convening of meetings and events to build and strengthen the stakeholder network and ECED system coordination efforts. In the conclusion of this chapter I discuss differences between my analysis 89 of ECNetwork’s roles and Williams’ framework and the implications. Finally, I examine additional features of ECNetwork which have implications for the positioning of MLCAs in other systems to carry out similar roles. Complicating Coordination The lack of and need for increased coordination in Tanzania’s ECED system has been recognized by the national ECED stakeholders. An evaluation conducted by a partner organization in order to gain an understanding the current state of ECED in Tanzania identified coordination as a main issue which needed to be addressed and improved. Participants in this ECED situation analysis highlighted the lack of an active coordinating organization as a major reason that coordination—particularly between civil society organizations (CSOs)/non-state actors and the national government—was lacking. Through consultation with national stakeholders over the course of several meetings, it was decided that ECNetwork would be repositioned to once again serve “as a national network for coordinating civil society organizations in their participation at ECD multisectoral dialogue” (National ECED forum summary document, 2018). Participant in my case study, as well as documents I examined, acknowledged this repositioning and identified that ECNetwork’s main task was coordination. When initially questioned about what ECNetwork does, participants provided little detail about what coordination involved or the range of skills that needed to be utilized in order to carry it out. The role from ECNetwork is to coordinate the partners, non-state actors. (Moses, interview 1) 90 ECNetwork, to be coordinating, to be providing, to be convening the other actors of ECD which is happening. (Irene, interview 1) …we make sure that we coordinate them, making sure things are working. So ECNetwork to coordinate all of these (NGOs), even these (INGOs). (Edwin, interview 1) Because even those closest to the ECED system actions described the work of ECNetwork as coordination may mean that ECNetwork administrators and ECED stakeholders, as well as the situation analysis evaluation team, use coordination in a broad sense as a catch-all term that leaves much unclear. It is, therefore, necessary to analyze the actions of ECNetwork as a MLCA to uncover what it means to play a coordination role in the Tanzanian ECED system. During the coding of interview data and observations, I named or noted actions that ECNetwork was seen or discussed as doing regularly to fulfill their position. Through discussions with non-state and government officials who interact with ECNetwork, it began to become clear that there were specified coordinating roles that were expected or performed. During an interview with a national government official within the MoHCDGEC, he explained how he hopes ECNetwork will function in its role of coordination (I have added underlining to highlight possible roles): Well coordination, coordination. We would like to see ECNetwork is known, is coordinating other stakeholders more than the government. So, we would like to see ECNetwork is organizing several stakeholders meeting to make sure that they know who’s doing what, who’s doing where, is doing when, which resources, and all this so that we don’t go to individual members who are doing ECD work on 91 the ground, in the future we would rely much on ECNetwork to get all this information. So, I’m seeing that all ECNetwork in that level. So, with this plan that we’re developing here, once we finalize this plan, we understand that there will be a role for different actors. So, we would rely much on ECNetwork to make sure we get most of the information, the intervention on the ground, the reports about this from ECNetwork. (Emmanuel, interview 1) Emmanuel suggests that there are indeed many activities involved in the coordination that ECNetwork is expected to do. He notes that some of the things that need coordination by ECNetwork are information about ECED activities in the country, giving input and feedback on the development of national plans, and gathering reports about implementation to share with government actors. This broader range of roles of gathering, consolidating, and sharing information—which all contribute to coordination of the system—begins to add complexity to the work of coordination. This chapter expands on and helps to explain how coordination is carried out within this context. In order to get a well-rounded understanding of the roles that ECNetwork plays during their coordination efforts, I analyzed activities during their work over a seven-week period in mid-2019. Within this period of time I was able to observe them interacting with all levels of stakeholders—from the ground to the international level. The diversity of interactions provided me with opportunities to see ECNetwork enacts many roles and in different ways, depending on the stakeholders with whom they were interacting. Through analysis of organizational documents, observational notes, and interviews I conducted with ECNetwork administrators, government officials, and non-state actors, I arrived at a set of MLCA roles and competencies representative of ECNetwork. 92 Choice of Framework In preparation for data analysis, I was faced with the choice of utilizing an existing framework and applying it to my data, developing a new framework, or piecemealing several frameworks based on my finds. As suggested in the prior chapter, I chose to utilize Williams’ existing framework of boundary spanners and explore how my findings would help to define and expand upon his roles and competencies when applied to a different type of actor and a new context. I made this choice for several reasons. First, an existing framework allowed me to speak to a still nascent area of research on coordination of multi-sectoral systems, where the agent who is spanning boundaries and bridging is doing so as their main purpose. Particularly because of the lack of knowledge about this type of actor in ECED systems, Williams’ framework provides access to a base of knowledge to draw from and conceptual depth, while still remaining open to interpretation and exploration to deepen and refine in new contexts with different types of boundary spanning actors. Second, I chose to use this framework because of the importance of continued refinement of frameworks through application to new settings. I began this study with the hopes that it will continue to be developed and honed through continued use in follow-up studies of the same context and additional studies in new country contexts. Finally, although I utilized the role and competency categories which Williams established, the meaning that each took on was dependent on my data. In the analysis that follows, I used the basic understanding of each role and competency to guide my coding, but the subsequent analysis of quotes shaped the ultimate meaning and depth within each competency. MLCA Roles and Competencies The following discussion considers ECNetwork’s work in terms of all four roles from Williams’ framework. Below I consider competencies that were frequent and central to the 93 activity of ECNetwork during the period of time when I did my observations and interviews. There are two important observations to note at the outset. First, while my data includes examples of each of the roles Williams’ framework discusses, these roles and competencies were not evenly salient. Several of the competencies were only coded a few times and didn’t seem representative of how ECNetwork currently functioned as an MLCA. Of course, it may be that ECNetwork will utilize more of these roles and competencies in the future. What ECNetwork draws on to accomplish its work may change over time depending on the needs of the ECED system at any one time. My fieldwork occurred in what was an initial phase of ECNetwork’s coordination work. In that way, my study offers a snapshot for the roles and competencies in play for the period of my study. While it is just a snapshot, because the study of this MLCA is unique in that it is a non-governmental actor, it broadens the conversation about what types of actors can fill this position in ECED systems. Because the major examples currently available in the literature are positioned as governmental entities, an initial look into how an organization outside of the government sector may accomplish some of the same coordination goals is significant. Additionally, because this snapshot occurs during the initial stages of increasing ECED system coordination, lessons learned about how an MLCA begins these processes and builds their influence and skills is new knowledge that hasn’t been documented before. This perspective could be particularly useful to other countries just beginning efforts to strengthen their own ECED systems. More than Making Connections: The Role of Reticulist The role of reticulist requires an “ability to develop and sustain a network of inter- personal relationships; political skills to influence actors and agencies with differential power bases using diplomacy and consensus seeking strategies; and a capacity to perform at both 94 strategic and operational levels, using network management techniques” (Williams, 2011, pg. 28). This role derives significant power through the “collection, filtering, and channeling of information” (pg. 28). According to Williams, the role of reticulist is performed through four competencies: diplomacy and political skills, networking, communicating, and managing multiple accountabilities. During the period of my research, I observed ECNetwork enacting all four competencies in this category. My observations also suggest that this is the central role ECNetwork plays in their current coordination efforts, as it was most frequently observed and discussed in interviews. Each of the competencies discussed below provide insight into the ways ECNetwork enacts the role of reticulist to develop the relationships and connections with stakeholders in the Tanzanian ECED system to facilitate their stated purpose of coordination. Reticulist competency #1: Diplomacy and political skills. Within the role of Reticulist, one highlighted competency is that of ‘diplomacy and political skills.’ Williams’ summary of this competency describes an actor that can bridge multiple interests, establish communication with a variety of actors with varying amounts of power, and navigate and work within established institutional and organizational systems (2002, 2011). The work that ECNetwork does as a MLCA hinges on diplomacy and political skills in particular; the ability of ECNetwork to understand the variety of institutional and power structures embedded within the government systems and non-state actor networks—which they have been mandated to bridge—is no small task. Before progress could be made in connecting stakeholders, ECNetwork needed to build knowledge of the power and governance structures within the national government. Because of the multisectoral nature of ECED, an understanding of the government’s procedures for engaging multiple sectors and coordinating multisectoral work was critical. ECNetwork had to navigate both formal and de facto policy to understand the proper multisectoral engagement 95 procedures. For example, the head of ECNetwork explained the reasoning and process of calling together multiple ministries to a meeting: …it’s like, you know, when President says, it’s like a policy; he ordered that all multisectoral initiatives should be coordinated by Prime Minister. The reason is, when we have a meeting for Permanent Secretary from line ministries, no one permanent secretary has power more than another one, but when they invite the Prime Minister, that is a national lead, so it’s easier to write to permanent secretary of those key ministries to come to the meeting. (Moses, interview 1) ECNetwork pays attention to the power dynamics. Moses notes that the Prime Minister’s Office houses the key officials who need to be engaged to call a multi-sectoral meeting. ECNetwork works within the established political structures and works to plan meetings that are more likely to be attended by the desired group of people. By working this way, ECNetwork can bypass the frustration of calling multi-sectoral meetings where no one shows up: So, when they are invited by Prime Minister, it’s like the prime minister is higher than other ministries. So, if you invite people to come to the meeting, it is easier to come through the Prime Minister. But, if the line ministry invited each other, they may not come…And therefore, the meeting do not get the participant which they want. (Moses, interview 1) Getting officials to attend meetings is just the first hurdle. In order for progress to be made on the ECED agenda, ECNetwork has work toward the goals of its stakeholders in a way that accounts for and frames them within the priorities of the government. Moses explains the 96 importance of simultaneously accounting for both government and other actors’ interests in developing agendas: …you know there are things if we are talking about the relevance, the issues we are addressing the relevant with the government priorities, but also it’s really the interest of the stakeholders, that’s easy to accept. (Moses, interview 1) He goes on to describe the attention that has to be paid to political windows of opportunity, which ECNetwork staff are to identify through continued engagement with the government: ECNetwork has been supported in terms of our different initiatives coming in, just because of the relevance of the issues, but also the timing as well. (Moses, interview 1) Irene echoes the importance of government priorities and the understanding of ECNetwork’s place within the ECED system, explaining, “…it is about national issues, and the NGOs, you know we are just complementing the government.” This approach, using diplomacy and political skills, is highly visible in the way in which the head of ECNetwork described their approach to working with the government: Not opposing the government, but also collaborating. But, a very strategic collaborator, not that much soft, but with evidence strong in the reasons, coming up with recommendations, and that government can understand that if this come from ECNetwork that is considered positive because it is like what we were saying, recognized by the government, has the credibility of doing that work. (Irene, interview 1) ECNetwork uses diplomacy and political skills not only to solidify their position within the early childhood system in the eyes of the government, but also in the eyes of non-state 97 actors—particularly network members and partners. ECNetwork maintains their credibility in the eyes of their members and partners by being seen at events and being seen as a close associate of government officials. For example, Moses discussed how they had co-planned a national ECED forum with the government in order for initiatives that resulted from it to be seen as government backed, but also as initiatives that were co-led with ECNetwork as head of the non-state actors. In addition to planning meetings with government and other key actors prior to the meeting, Moses explained the importance of being seen as standing with the government, while still recognizing that the government is the top actor: And it was [chaired] by the…the ministry was hosting it together with ECNetwork. So the co-host was [ECNetwork], even during the meeting the chair, the principal secretary, was sitting together with the board chair of ECNetwork. Even the discussions, I was given an opportunity to say something and during closing of the forum, I was given an opportunity to summarize what were the main discussions we had about coming up. (Moses, interview 1) Moses and members of the ECNetwork board understood the status their role as co-chair gave them, yet recognized that the government has ultimate power. When Moses talked about work that will be done as a result of the formation of the planning team, he makes sure to highlight both the ultimate power of the government, while explaining why it is important for non-state actors to be involved in the process: …responsible is government—It will be leading, because all the document are the government document. But we, like what we are doing today, we are supporting the government to come up with guidelines. Because the uses of the guidelines is not only the government alone, rather it’s even individuals. (Moses, interview 1) 98 Because non-state actors are involved heavily in the implementation of ECED programs, it is important that their knowledge and opinions be involved in the development of things such as guidelines. Non-state actors’ involvement fosters discussion, making the final document or plan more relevant to current on the ground realities. The national government has a central role in agenda setting; the national government decides what issues are going to be addressed and how much time and money will be allocated. This causes periodic mismatches between priorities of government and the needs or desires of non-state actors. Just because non-state actors are interested in addressing a particular issue on the ground, does not mean that the government can or will support them. Moses describes how ECNetwork monitors both government and non-government work, and recognizes that one’s priorities can’t be forced on the other. Rather, consistent interactions provide insight into when officials are open for new issues or when interests match: So, sometimes the government, the way it works (laughing), it’s quite difficult, eh. Yeah, we have to follow them, but not forcing them to. You can’t force them, they have their own priorities, but of course, you still not…we have to pursue them coming together, doing some work, even find out why we think so. So, have to do some a long time. For example, been talking to someone who said, ok fine, and they even advised me, ‘can you meet with the permanent secretary because he has the mandate of review?’ I said, ok, I have to [check on] his [availability], otherwise you could find he has a lot…you can’t talk about review [of an old policy], when someone thinking of the budget [of a new policy], and presentation to the Parliament. (Moses, interview 1) 99 By staying current on both sides, state and non-state, ECNetwork can quickly recognize when priorities match. When this happens, it provides a window of opportunity for discussion between government and non-government stakeholders. In these cases, ECNetwork acts as a mediator, helping to bridge between the different ways the groups work, make decisions, and understand various issues. This is where an MLCA such as ECNetwork has to use their political knowledge and skills to navigate between the desires of different groups and the realities that impact each. ECNetwork’s job becomes even more important when it works to bring the voices of the non-state actors into government discussions. Maintaining their credibility is paramount for ECNetwork to be able to continue to do their work as an MLCA, and this credibility can be helped or harmed by ECNetwork’s ability to navigate the political terrain while continuing to bring non-state actors’ priorities and concerns to the table in order to fuel change. The power of these groups individually is small and may decrease depending on political climate. ECNetwork’s work can potentially amplify these voices. Edwin explains how ECNetwork brings these individuals together to increase their influence by coming under the name ECNetwork: So, making sure that NGOs, ok, we have this issue—now we’re complaining about civic spaces is shrinking—ECD what we do, you call NGOs, ‘guys, there’s this issue, what should we do?’ Work together, we have a [network] recognized by the government as organizations working on issues of early childhood. We have to work on these for children. We don’t have guidelines, we call members, let us work for the government to develop these guidelines. (Edwin, interview 1) This quote highlights the political skills that ECNetwork must use to bring non-state actors together, build consensus among them to create a clear message, and then diplomatically approach the government with the offer of help, not complaints. Framing their work 100 diplomatically allows them to work across both government and non-government spaces to influence activity, improve conditions for those working on ECED, and make progress on the ground and on national government agendas. Diplomacy is relatively easy if both sides want the same thing, but when there is conflict between desired actions, this skill becomes even more important. For example, for years now, Tanzania has been trying to create a new policy or plan in relation to integrating early childhood policies and practices: We’ve been discussing about our child development policy, which of course was supposed to be reviewed. I see it takes too long, because we are being told that will be review by this year, but to date, now it’s May, nothing’s happening and we have been doing follow-up… And I remember we’ve been pushing up and coming up with integrated policy, but it didn’t work… Now, we are saying fine, if that one don’t work, we can take issues, and of course integrate within the, during the review, within the new policy. So, sometimes the government, the way it works (laughing), it’s quite difficult, eh. Yeah, we have to follow them, but not forcing them to. You can’t force them, they have their own priorities, but of course, you still not…we have to pursue them coming together, doing some work, even find out why we think so. (Moses, interview 1) Moses points out that if the government doesn’t want to do something or doesn’t agree with what is being pushed from the outside it won’t work. ECNetwork therefore has to be adept at taking the priorities of their non-state stakeholders and using their diplomacy and consensus seeking skills, knowledge of government priorities and preferences, and slowly work towards a mutually agreed upon solution. 101 A multisectoral ECED plan or initiative in Tanzania needs to consider both the government ministries that govern the policies and oversee implementation as well as the non- state actors who fund and/or implement a significant portion of the government’s initiatives. Because of this, it is necessary for the MLCA, ECNetwork, to understand, work with, and connect these two sides, to maintain both an active and visible presence in the processes. The current process of the development of a National ECED action plan is an example of such bridging work. The ECNetwork head explains, “For this development of this plan, we are going to work together as one team. Just to bring the government together and the non-state to come as one team…” He goes on to explain that this teamwork is important because the eventual plan and its resulting guidelines and implementing documents will be used by all ECED actors within the country. Successful implementation is more likely if all parties agree on the process and have had played a part in the design of the plan. To really solidify this team mentality, it was important for ECNetwork not only to be a part of the behind the scenes conversations, but also to be visibly engaged in leading the process. Throughout the revitalization of ECED dialogue in Tanzania, ECNetwork cohosted various workshops and meetings with the government. The ECNetwork director explained how he was made to be seen as an equal part of leading one of the large stakeholder gatherings: The ministry was hosting it together with ECNetwork. So, the co-host was, even during the meeting the chair, the principal secretary, was sitting together with the board chair of ECNetwork. Even the discussions, I was given an opportunity to say something and during closing of the forum, I was given an opportunity to summarize what were the main discussions we had about coming up… (Moses, interview 1) 102 In Tanzania, the government usually leads discussions which concern activities they are involved in. As a centralized state, Tanzania has a strong bureaucratic presence at every level of government. Therefore, the co-ownership of gatherings and initiatives was important not only to ECNetwork’s legitimacy, but also as a signal that the government was taking ownership of information that was produced in cooperation with non-state actors and NGO implementation data: Those presentations were actually made by the government in collaboration with non-state actors who are supporting to input some presentations. The presentations were done by the government representatives, although preparation was done by [all]…We did it why? because we think government is not mandated to tell what is happening, maybe sometimes if non-state actors could say, but maybe government feeling that maybe you are exaggerating, it’s not true, it’s not, but now it’s they themselves who did the presentations. (Moses, interview 1) Especially in the current context where data not produced by the government is given limited credibility by the government, ways to support and increase the ability of non-state actors to still have their contributions recognized and utilized in national decision making is imperative. Working with government officials to develop presentations for large-scale meetings allows information gathered by both sources to be integrated and presented. When government officials present this information in mixed actor settings it is legitimized and accepted. I observed this process of creating and approving these presentations during my data collection. It was a process of diplomatic negotiation. ECNetwork had to both preserve the work of the non-state actors they represent, while supporting the government’s goals, objectives, and standing. Tension often rose when statistics were presented that the government themselves hadn’t provided. This tension was 103 due to the 2018 amendments to the 2015 Statistics Act which made it illegal (and punishable by fine and/or 3-years in jail) to publish or circulate statistics which were not officially recognized or produced by the government (Parliment of the United Republic of Tanzania, 2015, 2018). When there was a disagreement, ECNetwork staff were placed in the middle of negotiating to pacify the government’s desire for positive image and the non-state actors’ desire to recognizing areas in need of improvement. ECNetwork worked to explain the importance of including information in some form and although often non-government provided statistics were removed, a description or generalized statement was put in its place so discussion of the issue was still possible. Ultimately, through their role as a Reticulist, the director of ECNetwork desires to use their diplomacy and political skills to be “strong enough to engage self with government, strong partner, but also trying to address issues that can help the member organizations to work better.” Done well, the diplomacy and political maneuvering that ECNetwork does should be seen as fair by both parties (government and non-state actors), and focused on forwarding the common ECED agenda. Reticulist competency #2: Networking. Related closely with the reticulist’s need to employ diplomacy and political skills is the need for networking. ECNetwork is seen as a network organization. This most basic understanding of networking is exemplified in how Joseph, from an INGO, describes ECNetwork’s networking role: Yes, because ECNetwork is a network of all the NGOs, being local and international, that are implementing ECD. They recently have been taking a very good role into bringing together partners who are implementing ECD. And that is the reason why they are at the front seat into these multisectoral coordination 104 process. Because, they know it’s only from this, where ECNetwork can work with all the partners, because we are going to have like stakeholders mapping – where all the partners who are doing ECD are going now to be known. I mean, that’s where now the role of ECNetwork will work. (Joseph, interview 1) People often discussed during interviews and meetings I observed that there was a need to identify all of the organizations working on ECED in the country in order to build lines of communication for planning, implementation, and policy development. Because of ECNetwork’s mandate to coordinate these actors, their ability to identify, connect with, and keep the network current is paramount to their networking activity. This is a challenge. Since organizations typically work on projects in five-year cycles, there is constant turnover of organizations working on ECED issues. In turn, the network needs to be constantly updated to keep up with the churn. While Joseph focuses on the networking of people and organizations, Edwin expands that definition to include networking of information. When discussing the importance of making sure that everyone involved in ECED is informed and continually engaged in order to maintain ECED’s visibility as a priority issue, Edwin explains how the everchanging landscape of the ECED actor network makes ECNetwork an important locus for communication and connection: People are doing ECD, but in most cases they don’t know what ECD is all about. That’s another challenge, even in the government…if you ask them, we have ECD, but most cases we…we talk to them, meetings, but they’re always surprised most, because there is this changing within the government. You work with people this year, tomorrow you find new people. The team we just joined, we just, new people, new person, I have never worked with him before. They just came 105 in…that part which were there, are all gone. So, you can find that kind of thing. So ECD is always new to people because…so that is one of the jobs, that ECNetwork has to make sure that ECD is a national [priority]. (Edwin, interview 1) Edwin highlights how important this information and common understanding is for both non- state and government actors in order for ECED to stay on the national agenda. Although ECNetwork is mandated to coordinate the non-state ECED actors, their networking necessarily crosses government and non-state actors. This quote from Edwin also hints at this by noting that there are changes to the network all the time, both in non-state and government actors. It is important that ECNetwork keeps up with these changes and continually networks to maintain current and relevant connections. From these two quotes, networking can be understood as creating links to others in order to utilize that network of connections to disseminate information and foster intra-network connections for members. Much of the networking that ECNetwork does fits within this general understanding. An example of ECNetwork’s involvement in networking was brought up by Moses, when discussing his role as director of ECNetwork. He explains that in preparation for a meeting he needed to make sure that stakeholders were invited to the table: During preparation of the meeting for nurturing care framework which was done in Dodoma. I was assigned to do all the invitations from two regions, Simi and Revuma, where now you can’t invite those people unless they get a permission from TAMISEMI, so I did myself, consulted the people, write the letter, they were informed and they’d come to the meeting, regional [unclear] officers and other supporting staff, five of them from each region. Inviting some partners who 106 also attended from the government side in the ministerial level, but also the partners who did presentations like Joseph [INGO], [National NGO] and others. (Moses, interview 1) Still utilizing diplomacy and political skills, Moses’s description shows the important part that an MLCA like ECNetwork plays in making sure that all the people who should be a part of a conversation are present. As this network grows, it is utilized again and again to accomplish tasks which work towards a common goal: Myself, Edwin, and Irene, on how can we think of rolling out this Nurturing Care Framework? And, uh, if it’s an idea, we could do through the lead members, so working together. And the other partners, of course, who can join it. (Moses, interview 1) As a MLCA, the networking that ECNetwork participates in doesn’t only initiate from them. It is also a recipient of inclusion in the network it helped to establish, as shown through ECNetwork’s inclusion in discussions about other multi-sectoral plans led by other thematic networks. Often ECNetwork will become a part of a process or working group through the recommendation of a stakeholder that it has been networking with. This was the case for developing the National Plan of Action for Violence Against Women and Children, NPA-VAWC, as Irene describes: Actually, it is the government and UNICEF. Yes, UNICEF approached the government, the government, say that, approached WiLDAF, but WiLDAF knows that this is the specialty of ECNetwork. That’s how we join it. So, I can say for us it is good news. (Irene, interview 1) Because of the integral nature of non-state actors within the Tanzanian ECED system, having an MLCA like ECNetwork to manage them as a network, and connect them to the 107 government and each other when necessity arises, is a critical function. One instance where this is being done in the Tanzanian ECED system is ECNetwork using their network to connect government officials to partners that can aid in the development of guidelines which then can be field tested: It’s a really inclusive processes because the partners are the one who are going to use the guidelines, so they will come up with their thoughts and their views on how the governments…and the final document will have the government logo on it…I see organization coming and say, I don’t have guidelines, can we have guidelines, but come and collectively we can speak with the government. (Moses, interview 1) The network connections that bridge the ground level implementing organizations and the national government are integral in creating a feedback loop that can help to inform changes which impact all levels. In the case of preprimary education, several programs implemented by ECNetwork member organizations are modifying classrooms and doing teacher trainings to build age-appropriate environments and instruction. These programs have provided opportunities for government officials to visit and be trained in the same methods, which informs curriculum development and teacher training programs. Additionally, when government budgets were being discussed, these programs were consulted to help inform cost considerations. Connecting to the lower levels of government and to non-state actors is not as difficult a task for ECNetwork as their connecting with national government. As Irene comments, “I think this is not your first time in Tanzania and you are aware that engaging the government officials is not a small job…(both laugh)…and ECNetwork has been doing that successfully.” She highlights that it is the connecting that an MLCA, particularly a non-governmental MLCA like 108 ECNetwork, does with the national level government that can be the most difficult, and yet the more rewarding. This difficult area of networking is made easier through personal relationships which were established previously by an individual within the MLCA. This is the case for Moses. He describes ECNetwork’s ways of networking with the government: We have been working with the government, we use what communicate through phones, email, and visiting. And, we have built a very big [network] with these people from the government. For myself, it’s almost in the area of spaces that we have been together in college, others we have been working before in other projects, other initiative, so it may be easier to acquaint and…And myself, I could feel that. I’ve been getting their support whenever I need it from the government. I know the process is sometimes delays, but at least you can have some support. (Moses, interview 1) Because of the connections that exist on a personal level for Moses, connections for the MLCA as a whole are facilitated that much more easily. This asset that Moses possesses has lessened the time it has taken to make network connections to the actors he already knew and had previous connection to. The networking that ECNetwork engages in is not ‘as needed’, but rather constant and continuous. Maintaining their network allows them to have access to a variety of expertises, whether of an institution or an individual. Dr. K from University of Dodoma explains how she came to be a part of ECNetwork’s network, “I involved through that because first of all I’m dealing with matters in relation to early childhood education, and I was connected with ECNetwork firstly, and they were mapping those Universities who have these courses in relation to early years.” ECNetwork does its networking proactively, knowing that everyone involved in 109 ECED in Tanzania is important to know, even if ECNetwork doesn’t know yet how they may be utilized or helped by being a part of it. Edwin explains this further, Even now, with the [planning team], there is representation from these academic institutions. So, we make sure we don’t lose them, because whenever we want to do research we have to contact them, they are experts…we have experts there, because we have all the individuals…from the beginning ECNetwork has been working with them…So you find that we don’t leave them behind when we are doing issues. Yeah. University of Dodoma, we have Dr. M, who…even if, when we are at the meeting in Nairobi we took her there. Also we supports her in that, we go to Nairobi on the ECD meeting. So, we make sure that the academic feeds the… ‘this is important’ but we say, ah, what is the evidence? We say ok, we have these, they can explain, they are the academics they have the expertise. So that’s why when we talk about “this is important”, the government wants evidence, you say, ‘this is what they can say, look at this.’ So, we make sure that all these…we make sure we take every opportunity, make sure everyone…when we talk, the evidence should come from these. (Edwin, interview 1) In addition to building a diverse of network of ECED stakeholders, it is important to utilize the members’ particular skills and contributions. For example, ECNetwork maintains the involvement of network members from universities and other research institutions through capitalizing on their expertise in research and data collection. Coming from national institutions, these are ideal for providing evidence, support for data gathering efforts, and context specific ECED recommendations. 110 Because of the diverse networking that ECNetwork has done, it is easier for ECNetwork to utilize the connections that they have made when the need arises. In a multisectoral system like ECED, there is occasionally need for subsets of thematic areas such as nutrition or child protection to be formed to work on specific issues. For example, a representative from an INGO describes one such occasion, ECD subsector has to have what you call technical working groups that need to meet on a quarterly basis. And the technical working groups are normally arranged on thematic areas. So, what we have now is five major thematic areas, which fall under Nurturing Care Framework…meaning health, nutrition, early learning, stimulation, and safety and security/protection. So, I expect in a normal situation those will be the thematic areas, so ECNetwork will have to coordinate with these multidiscipline stakeholders who are forming—CSO, INGO, local NGO, and so forth—who needs to participate in what thematic area according to what they are doing? Because not all organizations are working on all five. (Adam, interview 1) For ECNetwork, its relevant network is not limited by national boundaries. Because of the high level of influence and activity of global actors in national affairs, building connections beyond the Tanzanian border holds many advantages. Networking beyond national boundaries requires purposeful attendance of international meetings and conferences. ECNetwork has limited resources and isn’t able to fund their own attendance to regional or international conferences. ECNetwork has to rely on their existing network members to acknowledge the relevance of ECNetwork’s participation in these events. When ECNetwork’s attendance is seen 111 as necessary and critical because of their connectedness, support is offered from members and partners: There was an African ECD conference in Nairobi we had an opportunity to participate myself and other partners, and the government people also, UNICEF agreed to sponsor one person—so we went there. (Moses, interview 1) Without already being a part of a network of connections which were also attending this international meeting, ECNetwork might have been left out of the initial planning associated with the Tanzanian contextualization of the global ECED framework which was launched at the event. However, because of their positioning as an MLCA, ECNetwork was able to be involved in the discussions in Nairobi and serve as the link back to the ECED network in Tanzania. In turn their involvement in the Nairobi meeting helped them to gain legitimacy in these global conversations and recognition in their own country as a leading ECED stakeholder. Networking done with other large networked organizations builds out from ECNetwork exponentially. This can be seen through the bridging ECNetwork has done with AfECN, the all Africa ECD network, and with international partners of ECNetwork such as UNICEF. Joseph, from an INGO, describes ECNetwork’s connection with AfECN: And recently we have had opportunities to have a lot of international information through AFECN, and ECNetwork has been now localizing them through to us, and in different forums we have been having some updates. I mean, at least getting to know what is happening on ECD out there, and down here. (Joseph, interview 1) Opportunities to interact with international stakeholders allows ECNetwork to learn about new initiatives and programs being implemented elsewhere which may be helpful to Tanzania. The 112 networking done through these interactions is critical for locating and attaining resources that ECNetwork and Tanzania are dependent on. Additionally, new connections from outside of Tanzania may offer new assistance in the form of knowledge resources, as well as increasing ECNetwork’s legitimacy and visibility in Tanzania. Being connected to the international has allowed for networking on a new scale. Because of previous work contextualizing international ECD information through AfECN, ECNetwork has been called on by other international organizations to do the same for the current roll out of WHO/UNICEF’s Nurturing Care Framework. This further requires and allows them to continue to utilize their network of connections across the country: The mandate of, of course, rolling out Nurturing Care Framework is in within the WHO and that’s what we want also to…tasked WHO to support the processes. However, you have to bring the local context and as we said, for now, having it done this last meeting in Dodoma, we have got an experience, everything that’s starting, it could be our mandate also again, to push this rollout to other regions. However, this should need a lot of planning in terms of how to mobilize the resources. We know for the technical people we have and we have presentations several times, however, now we think of apart from other initiatives and the review processes and the plan of action, that doesn’t stop us of thinking of doing some of the things which can be done. One among, I think you with us discussing, myself, Edwin, and Irene, on how can we think of rolling out this Nurturing Care Framework? And, uh, if it’s an idea, we could do through the lead members, so working together. And the other partners, of course, who can join it. (Moses, interview 1) 113 The ability of Tanzania to implement the “guiding principles, strategic actions, and ways of monitoring progress” (World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund, & World Bank Group, 2018, pg. 3) outlined in the Nurturing Care Framework is enhanced and enabled through discussions with others outside their country attempting to contextualize the general guidance. Through this extended network ECNetwork can facilitate partnerships with international organizations, gain advice from neighboring countries, and share their own experiences in the future with others trying to do similar work. Often networking is seen as a process, but it can also be seen as an end in itself because of the way in which utilizing this network of connections and information dissemination can help facilitate the creation of documents which can be easily accepted. Through established links and involvement in the process, both government and non-state actors have a part in the creation of national documents. ECNetwork’s networking helps to facilitate this process. Moses explains: So, our role as ECNetwork is to ensure that we come up with those kind of national…because one among the objective of ECNetwork is to create an enabling environment for partners to work. One among the environment [unclear] is to have a document that lead them to test on their programs. And now, I see organization coming and say, I don’t have guidelines, can we have guidelines, but come and collectively we can speak with the government; that’s why even the government is coming to ECNetwork to say, can you to help to organize partners to come up with the guidelines. (Moses, interview 1) Because the network that ECNetwork has facilitated can provide different supports depending on the connection, networking goes beyond developing a relationship or connection and provides opportunities for capacity building of individual network members. Moses talks 114 about the desire to achieve this facet of the role: “we would like ourselves to have ECNetwork being strong enough to engage self with government, strong partner, but also trying to address issues that can help the member organizations to work better.” During their work, ECNetwork may support member organizations through workshops to strengthen financial accountability systems, data collection and reporting techniques, or through training of new staff. For example, during my data collection ECNetwork hosted three new members of a local NGO who were being supported by an international NGO to implement an ECED intervention. Because none of these local NGO staff had worked in ECED before, the international NGO wanted them to get extra training in the ‘science of ECED’ through ECNetwork. They spent two full days being hosted by ECNetwork in order to develop their knowledge and understanding of ECED, which in turn will enhance their ability to implement ECED programs in their local context. Even in relation to government, ECNetwork sees their networking as allowing them to support government where they can. “Sometimes you can see even the government writing an email to us, ask for some issues, to of course seek some consultations, that’s what we want. So it’s easy even to…to consult government officials for some issues we want to have” (Moses, interview 1). From these quotes it is clear that ECNetwork expects to utilize their networking to fulfill the needs of connections as they arise. This necessarily means that these connections have to be constantly monitored and nurtured, as needs can come about at any time. Reticulist competency #3: Communicating. In both of the competencies just discussed, communicating is the main way that they get enacted. However, the competency of communicating has a larger purpose than simply being the mode by which other roles and competencies are carried out. According to Williams’ framework (2011), communicating as a boundary spanner, such as an MLCA, involves gatekeeping. ECNetwork uses the competency of 115 communicating in order to collect, filter, and channel information between stakeholders. Although ECNetwork uses this competency with many stakeholders, because of their position as the bridge between the national government and non-state actors, communicating as gatekeeping can be seen as most essential between these two groups of stakeholders. Taking policy change as a general example, it is easy to see this competency in action. First, when an item comes onto the national agenda which has implications for ECED programs on the ground, ECNetwork calls these stakeholders together to gather information and develop a clear message to take to government, as this partner organization describes: They speak on behalf of so many organizations, and I think their voices become more strong to the government, than individuals going to the government to advocate in piece and piece… coordinate all the NGOS and different actors, put together the themes and talking to the government on their behalf, but also taking some feedback back to them, but also bringing them together. (Samuel, interview 1) As Samuel describes, ECNetwork gathers feedback and helps stakeholders to form concise talking points to convey to the national level government. An example of this is how ECNetwork is working to get guidelines for operating community child care settings passed at the national level. Because it is ECNetwork’s members who will utilize these guidelines, it was these members who ECNetwork consulted in order to make sure that guidelines developed by the government addressed implementing organizations concerns and included their recommendations. For these stakeholders, ECNetwork is their conduit, through which they can make their voices heard at a level they couldn’t reach as individuals. 116 The partners, when they’re working down there, they can feed their work to ECNetwork, so that ECNetwork can share with others, but also to inform some changes and agenda for whatever policy engagement. (Moses, interview 1) This benefit is recognized by the government, and they acknowledge how this gathering of information from the ground allows decisions to be informed by different views which would be difficult to access without ECNetwork. Because from ECNetwork it is, it has different members; so they can capture the different views from the member, from those [on the ground]. (Glory, interview 1) Edwin, an ECNetwork administrator, described how they present this information to the government saying, “Members should give us the case studies, the reports. We will take them, showcase to the national level.” This would involve ECNetwork presenting relevant information when relevant to the work that the national government has on their agenda. Similarly, when the government has made policy or programmatic changes, ECNetwork acts as the transmission mechanism to its members. For example, as we were doing the ECD national policy…the policy document was not just shared direct to the partners, it was going through ECNetwork, ECNetwork would be the one to kind of bring in all partners, review, and then go with one statement on what exactly was felt by the partners. (Rose, interview 1) Rose mentions at the end of her description of ECNetwork sharing the policy document with partners, that they then reviewed it and ECNetwork took their response back to the government. This is an important cycle for the Tanzanian government. Because there is varied ECED 117 expertise in the government, and who is in each office changes periodically, they look to experts in the field to bring context and outside knowledge into planning and development processes. People are doing ECD, but in most cases they don’t know what ECD is all about. That’s another challenge, even in the government…if you ask them, we have ECD, but most cases we…we talk to them, meetings, but they’re always surprised most, because there is this changing within the government. (Edwin, interview 1) ECNetwork helps the government to build and maintain a consistent knowledge base. Regardless of who at any one point in time sits in particular ministry positions, ECNetwork can be the consistency that helps to catch new officials up on current ECED work, and guard against losing progress on initiatives that span administrative changes. Reticulist competency #4: Managing multiple accountabilities. Williams (2002) describes this competency as “an area of tension that requires delicate judgement. Boundary spanners are particularly confronted with the accountability interface between their role as organizational representative and that of partner in a multi-agency environment” (pg. 120). ECNetwork’s position as a MLCA in the Tanzanian ECED system means that they belong to various committees, groups, and teams working to improve the state of children. Each group has their own mission and agenda, which ECNetwork has to manage while not letting these commitments outweigh their own commitment as an organization. Being the bridge between the government and non-state actors, ECNetwork must strike a delicate balance. Although both groups have similar goals for ECED, they have different ways of working and prioritize different types of information and action. Each of these large groups works on very different timetables. CSOs generally working on 5-year project periods while the 118 national government works on a political schedule regulated by terms, strategic plan years, and initiative ebb and flow. In addition to being accountable to government and their own members, ECNetwork has a governing board which oversees its operations, fundraising, and financial affairs. This combination of actors, which ECNetwork has to navigate simultaneously, makes managing multiple accountabilities an ongoing work in progress. During the times that ECNetwork was preparing for stakeholder meetings, they could be observed navigating these accountabilities. While reviewing presentations that had been prepared by non-state actors, Moses had to try and maintain the desires of these stakeholders to shine a light on ECED issues which need to be addressed while editing the phrasing and taking out statistic that the government didn’t approve. This isn’t easy when you have multiple stakeholder groups with differing priorities, different levels and protocols for approval of presentations at national level meetings, and attitudes which view differently the acknowledgement of failure or need for improvement. The ability of ECNetwork to remain neutral and at the same time on everyone’s side is complicated. The need to maintain positive working relationships with all parties means that any conflicts between them need to be carefully and skillfully addressed. More than New Ideas: The Role of Entrepreneur Williams (2011) describes his boundary spanners in their role as entrepreneurs as having the ability to recognize and work towards “new ideas, innovation and experimentation in the search for effective solutions to complex [social] problems” (pg.28). According to Kingdon (2011), the ability to take on this role is enabled by three qualities: having claim to a hearing, being known for political connections or negotiation skills, and being persistent. The role of entrepreneur is taken up by ECNetwork when a window of opportunity opens up in the national government’s agenda. I was able to witness this entrepreneurial role in action during meetings 119 leading up to and during initial planning of the Early Childhood National Plan of Action. Because of the early stages of the process, several competencies under Williams’ entrepreneur role —risk taking, creativity and innovation, negotiating—were only beginning to be utilized. However, interviews and observations provided ample evidence of it relying on competency in brokering, which was essential for the initiation of the current process. Entrepreneur competency: Brokering. Using this competency, ECNetwork focuses on initiating and brokering “sustainable solutions between different parties and coalitions. This involves coupling problems to solutions, and taking advantage of political, financial and other windows of opportunity” (Williams, 2011, pg. 29). This is enabled by their knowledge of the political and government agenda, and their understanding of and up-to-date information on work that members and partners in their network are implementing. The first part of brokering, coupling problems with solutions, relies on the connections that ECNetwork has created. They can reach out to groups already working on relevant problems and gather information about their approaches and results. ECNetwork can refer to the vast experience and expertise in their membership to provide the government with work that is currently underway to solve problems of interest and aid officials in the form of consultations, partnerships, and resources. This process was described by Moses as “having ECNetwork as a hub of information, coming of course down from implementation” (Moses, interview 2). Additionally, because the network that ECNetwork has created goes beyond their national membership, there are resources and information from partner and global organizations which provide ample options for government when deciding how to approach a new initiative. During an interview Edwin described the information exchange between the network and government. He said that the government comes and says, “we want this change…where do we 120 get the evidence” (Edwin, interview 1) that can show us how to make this impact? Edwin responded to the question he posed by saying, “From members! Members should give us the case studies, the reports, those reports we will take them, showcase to the national level” (Edwin, interview 1). This supply of “hows” that ECNetwork can provide to the national government during their decision-making processes provides options and expertise that the government can then capitalize on during the drafting and implementation of plans. The logic of this idea was explained succinctly by a representative from a member organization: So you find there are implementation which actually happening, and how can those be piloted, and actually look at how to scale them, other than just coming up with a document and then we go and then you realized actually that it’s not, it’s not working […] Maybe by working in one district and see how things actually being done in practical, then that will actually inform the development of whatever documents [the government] are working on. (Rose, interview 1) Through thinking of the work that is happening on the ground—being implemented by non-state actors—as pilots, the government has research-based and tested options that can help them to make informed decisions about the programs and process they write into policy or expand as a national initiative. The second, often more challenging part of brokering is waiting for the right time to approach the government to offer these solutions. Specifically related to policy, this is often referred to as a policy window. Kingdon (2011) defines a policy window as opportunities that arise which make the government amenable to discussion of a specific problem for which an entrepreneur, such as ECNetwork in this scenario, has a solution that they wish to promote. The 121 relevance of the solution, information, and assistance that ECNetwork has to offer makes it more likely that the government will engage with them. These windows of opportunity may or may not be predictable. In the case of the current process that ECNetwork is engaged in with the government, the window of opportunity to provide solutions to develop a plan for integrating the multisectoral ECED system was predictable because of a series of events which piqued and highlighted the government’s interest in such a plan. First, ECNetwork had been an active participant on a multisectoral plan for the prevention of violence against women and children (NPA-VAWC) in 2016/2017. This was followed by the development of another multisectoral plan for nutrition (NMNAP). These two plans both had huge relevance to ECED and it was noted by ECNetwork and other stakeholders that they would benefit from coordination between them. Second, in 2017/2018 a partner of ECNetwork conducted an ECED situation analysis and presented the findings to government. This situation analysis was one of the catalysts which prompted ECNetwork, the national government, and several partners to plan a national ECED forum at the end of 2018 because of the lack of ECED dialogue it highlighted in its findings. Finally, a few short months before this national forum, many of the same stakeholders attended an East African ECED forum in Nairobi, Kenya. This international forum was the venue where the roll out of the Nurturing Care Framework (NCF), developed by UNICEF and WHO was announced. Because of both national and international agendas focused on multisectoral coordinated ECED plans, it was an opportune time for ECNetwork to take initiative, coordinate, and move the agenda for addressing ECED holistically forward. This combination of factors was summed up in one of the stakeholder meetings I attended where they were discussing the way forward; in my observation notes I documented a summary of the conversation: 122 Trying to get a vision for the National ECED Plan for Tanzania. At a framework level the nurturing care framework is like the bible. How can it inform, but not duplicate other plans. What can it look like and how can it supplement what is already in place (nutrition and violence against women and children). (Week 2 Observation Notes) The discussion these stakeholders were having emphasized the importance that these documents had in the initiation of this plan’s development and the process going forward. The Director of ECNetwork recognized the impact these events and initiatives had on their success: If we are talking about the relevance, the issues we are addressing they’re relevant with the government priorities, but also it’s really the interest of the stakeholders, that’s easy to accept. That’s what I can say, been getting support…ECNetwork has been supported in terms of our different initiatives coming in, just because of the relevance of the issues, but also the timing as well. (Moses, interview 1) The aligning of these windows of opportunity, the knowledge and experience of their members and partners, and ECNetwork’s engagement of the government made the forwarding of this agenda more likely. Additionally, because of the close relationship and key position that ECNetwork played in this advancement, the government recognized their contribution to the process: I’m seeing there are a lot of things that are happening through ECNetwork. And for sure, we could have not reached to this level, especially this agenda that we are talking about here, without ECNetwork… (Emmanuel, interview 1) 123 More than Getting to Know You: The Role of Interpreter At the end of a conference disseminating and discussing the results of a recent of ECED research in Dar es Salaam, the group facilitator summarized what the individual tables of stakeholders had highlighted in their reviews of the report. She emphasized the common theme of the need to strengthen relationships—or mahusiano in Kiswahili. She noted that ECED in Dar could be improved through strengthening of relationships between and within different groups of people: service providers and government, families and service providers, within families themselves (parents and children), communities and national government, and relationships that facilitate information sharing between all those levels. Throughout my time in Tanzania it was clear that relationships are the currency of progress; whether it is progress in getting ECED on the government’s agenda, progress in coordinating implementation efforts, or progress in addressing issues of ECED holistically. Through a call from a colleague that helped to get information on timelines for my research clearance, friendship with a bajaji driver that made it easier to navigate the big city, or the slow introduction to government officials over time that made interviews during my data collection possible, my life was enabled greatly through my past and newly developed relationships in Tanzania. So too is the case for ECNetwork. Progress often hinges on their ability to rely on the relationships they have developed over time. Interpreter Competency #1: Building Interpersonal Relationships. Building relationships with a diverse group of actors is difficult. These relationships become more difficult when trying to work together and understand each other’s perspectives of issues. This task is made more challenging for ECNetwork because the groups that they work with are often made up of government and non-state actors; local, national, and international NGO representatives; as well as national academics. Williams (2002) places building interpersonal 124 relationships at the crux of his boundary spanner’s interorganizational work. He states, “People from a variety of organizational, professional and social backgrounds assemble to pursue mutually beneficial agendas, and this demands an investment in time to forge an effective working relationship and a readiness to visualize reality from the perspective of others” (Williams, 2002, pg. 115). During meetings with a variety of stakeholders, I witnessed ECNetwork take this time, and through discussions and interviews discovered the long-term engagement that helped to solidify relationships. In the context of the planning team, where government and non-state (local, national, international, academic) ECED stakeholder groups are represented, the process of building these interpersonal relationships through building “knowledge about roles, responsibilities, problems, accountabilities, cultures, professional norms and standards, aspirations and underlying values” (Williams, 2002, pg. 115) was apparent and desired as a part of early meetings. For example, while planning the timetable for an early planning team planning meeting, the Director of ECNetwork and a representative from the national government discussed adding to the agenda time for “building our team in a concrete way” (Quote from week one observation notes); they planned to include an orientation to who is in the group, who fulfills what role, know each other’s strengths and experiences so they might best be utilized. This was brought up as an important component of initial meetings because of a fear that when the meetings were over, group members would fall back into working as individuals. This fear was real as it had been an issue raised from previous experience with prior multisectoral plan attempts that had failed. Because ECNetwork is positioned as a MLCA in the Tanzanian system, they have more opportunities to develop interpersonal relationships with other stakeholders than the average 125 organization. Particularly with national government, ECNetwork has the opportunity and often the obligation to attend high level meetings, as described by one ECNetwork administrator: When you are representing NGOs, ECNetwork goes into even into the meetings at the Permanent Secretary level. When the PS calls for a meeting on implementing NGOs, Moses has to go in that meeting with PS […] ECNetwork and the PS on the Secretary’s steering committees, ECNetwork was on the technical committee, technical team, ECNetwork was on the Secretariat. So, ECNetwork would appear, all these meetings ECNetwork was available. Yeah, even now, when the PS have to talk to with the NGOs, ECNetwork needs to be there; if you organize a meeting on issues to discuss, on the issues that we would go together, ECNetwork would go. So ECNetwork is in the logistics, ECNetwork is in the technical, ECNetwork is in the decision. (Edwin, interview 1) Given the amount of time that the Director of ECNetwork is able to spend with government officials, it is more likely that their relationships and understanding of each other will deepen. A unique connection that this Director of ECNetwork shares with several of the government stakeholders also helped to create a strong foundation that was easy to build on; when discussing a newly appointed Permanent Secretary, an ECNetwork partner discussed the benefit of prior connections: He’s from the same region as Moses. Moses and him know each other and these connections all count. (Henry, interview 1) This was true for many stakeholders that the ECNetwork Director and officials worked with. Because they had all been in similar fields of work, had gone to school together, or grew up in the same region, it was easier to make contact when needed. Although it didn’t make processes 126 any less difficult or tedious, it was helpful to know that if you picked up the phone to call someone, they would answer your call. This seemed to be one of the true tests of whether you had developed a good relationship with someone: are you named in their phone? If it is any indication, Moses made and received lots of phone calls during my data collection. Those phone calls made the wheels of progress turn. Phone calls were used to alert or remind government officials of emails ECNetwork was waiting for them to respond to. Answers to the questions in the email were typically given on the phone instead. The day before, and sometimes the morning of, meetings Moses made phone calls to confirm attendance. Because of the low quality of video calls, phone calls were used as a virtual meeting place in order to make updates to programs and presentations. In my observations I often noted the number of times interviews and meetings were interrupted by phone calls. It reminded me of the number of times that the email notification rings on computers during my own meetings, or on cells phones during meals. So, the way ECNetwork goes, we’re happy, that now we can go with issues, we say we want to meet, and the minister we can get them; want to meet Parliamentarians, we can get them. (Irene, interview 1) Interpreter Competency #2: Framing and Sensemaking. Ibrahim, a government representative, visiting the ECNetwork office for planning purposes, posed a question to me about the difference between theoretical frameworks, logic frameworks, or conceptual frameworks. I was confused at first why he had this question and answered the best I could. Eventually, I realized that it was in relation to all of the different “logic model”, “theory of logic”, “strategic plan”, “process model” type things they see in funder and partner proposals. He was trying to understand what the difference was based on the labels. Because I knew that generally these are all different names for the same thing, this led me to ask about this in relation 127 to the importance of common understanding when you are working with so many people who have different backgrounds. When I observed ECNetwork and other stakeholders continually focus on semantics and definitions during review of documents, I realized that I was really observing them trying to develop a common “language” which will define the system’s understanding of concepts and terms. Ibrahim brought this up directly in an early task team meeting when he discussed the difficultly of working in a multisectoral group. He pointed out the importance of getting all stakeholders together in the same room so they can know each other and each other’s work. If this isn’t done, those involved can only interpret the written document through their individual “lens.” It is a group lens which must be defined so that all are aware of the various parts, the role they play, and how things will be implemented (Week 3 observation notes). Through conversation with ECNetwork officials and national government officials I got a glimpse of the immense task ECNetwork has in framing information for different stakeholders they interact with in order for it to be meaningfully understood. This entails not only translating information between Kiswahili and English, but also being the linguistic bridge between how information is discussed by different stakeholder groups. The words and frames used by these groups are all slightly different. ECNetwork has to understand how issues are discussed in National discourse, global policy reform dialogues, and in conversations between ECED implementers so information can be conveyed and understood by others (both within and outside these groups). In the previously discussed competency of communicating, the result of the information they transmit is only as good as the other party’s ability to make sense of it. Therefore, the skill in framing and sensemaking is vital not only to building interpersonal relationships, but to the effectiveness of those relationships. Particularly as co-chair of the 128 National ECED planning team, ECNetwork’s ability to assist in the development of a common language, bridging multiple “professional languages” (Williams, 2011)—which aren’t shared between stakeholders—is a priority. This need was apparent from the first meeting I attended where multiple types of stakeholders were present. During a UNICEF partner meeting, each presenter used a different word for the type of ECED center they were discussing. When the question was posed as to what the difference was between a crèche and daycare, there was a notable silence and several possible, not definite, conclusions. Additionally, there was also confusion about what ages are served at different types of centers. These discrepancies existed not only in practice, but in the documents and policies formalized in ministries responsible for different components and stages of ECED. This was brought up during meetings of stakeholders and during interviews. Adam, an INGO professional, has been deeply involved in education in Tanzania and lent his expertise to help me understand why people had been discussing problems with policy overlap and contradiction related to ECED: So, those kind of contradiction is what exist, and that’s the reason why even the sectoral policies, especially for ECD have not been endorsed, because they need to clear a lot of issues. And, uh, that has not been possible given the size of the Ministries, Departments, and Agencies, and their mandated powers. Everybody seems to be in their own silo. So, the collaboration and coordination and mechanism to ensure that all these are clear has not been that feasible. And we as ECD practitioners, as civil society organizations who are working with children, are working too as a result of that. (Adam, interview 1) 129 This conversation directly related to conversations throughout my data collection mentioning the need for government-endorsed center guidelines. Even if policies were slower to pass, guidelines would make an immediate impact on the work that is already happening on the ground. There has been some progress on this front; through partnership between ECD stakeholders including national and international NGOs, ECNetwork, and the government, guidelines were developed in 2016 and submitted in 2018 for official government approval, but they have yet to be endorsed. Without these guidelines, an official common language is impossible, as each implementing NGO and government labeled ECED settings and processes based on their own organizational understanding of the system and their backgrounds. Interpreter Competency #3: Trust Building. Trust is fundamental to all relationships, and mistrust and suspicion negatively impact and lessen the likelihood of productive collaborative partnerships (Williams, 2011). Both in the literature and in my own study of this MLCA, personal trust and institutional trust were difficult to disentangle (Williams, 2002). Because of these intertwining forms of trust, it is important to look at ECNetwork’s competency of trust from an individual and organizational perspective. From an individual perspective, the Director in particular came to ECNetwork with an established baseline of trust with individual ECED stakeholders because of shared work on projects in the past, or long-standing personal relationships through schooling and home town or familial connections. This base-level of trust in the public face of ECNetwork was crucial because of the damage that had been done to the institutional trust of ECNetwork in the past. Because of this breach of that trust in the past, ECNetwork wasn’t building trust from a neutral position. They were starting from a deficit. 130 With a fresh start and a new administration in charge of ECNetwork, they are having to rebuild trust and reassure stakeholders that they are stable and accountable. During an interview with partner organization representative, he made it clear that no matter how involved ECNetwork was in ECED, trust was a make or break issue: Because as much as they have influence on ECD, if as an organization they are not stable, they cannot do anything: they cannot be trusted as an organization, they cannot account for the resources they are being entrusted to work on, they cannot really manage the team they have in the partner organization. (Baraka, interview 1) During my data collection, there were several ways in which I witnessed and discussed how trust was being rebuilt between ECNetwork and its members and partners. The most labor intensive and product-focused undertaking to rebuild organizational trust was the carrying out of an organizational review. This exhaustive organizational review was conducted in order to: Facilitate an organizational review of ECNetwork with a particular focus on constitutional arrangements of her Organisational structure, vision and mission, and assessing the effectiveness of stakeholder’s participation at all levels; - Make recommendations and facilitate agreement on key priorities for organizational strengthening to support ECNetwork repositioning in the short- term and effective leadership in the long term; - Develop an institutional development plan for ECNetwork to be implemented over two years between 2019 and 2020. (Organizational Review Final Report) The process of doing this review was both necessary in order to “review and reform” ECNetwork as an organization (Henry, interview 1), and strategic in that it was a chance to 131 reengage with current and former members and partners and alert them to the work that is happening to revitalize and reposition ECNetwork. Several stakeholders commented during interviews on the “shrinking civil society space” and the increasing tensions between state and non-state actors. As one interviewee mentioned after a new Permanent Secretary was appointed and started making changes, “it felt like it’s quite clear he’s made mandate there’s more to do with scrutinizing civil society, and registration and accountability and this whole civil society shrinking space” (Henry, interview 1). The lack of voice that non-state actors were feeling meant that the opportunity to have ECNetwork revitalized was of keen interest. ECNetwork was appreciated by the government as a national network for its ability to provide information, resources, and knowledge to government processes. As the Director of ECNetwork explained during my observations, the government and NGOs have usually been on opposite sides. This makes the relationship that ECNetwork has with the government so special. The head of a partner organization confirmed the different level of trust that a non-state network has with government. He explained, “I do feel that there’s more of an institutional trust to work with Tanzanian local networks which are there representing, as it were, wider stakeholder voices which are national and local in voice” (Henry, interview 1). The familiarity with the organizational structure of ECNetwork allowed additional trust to be built with government because of similar work that is done with other thematic networks such as the networks representing NGOs working in general education, agriculture, business, and law. The government officials that I interviewed expressed their increasing trust in ECNetwork. A national official involved in child development said, We are building a lot of, actually we have built a lot of trust with ECNetwork, ever since they started this process. So, the ministry’s trusting them and they are 132 doing a wonderful job on the ground, so we are happy with ECNetwork. And for sure, we are also trying to see how other people see ECNetwork, so they feel that they are well coordinated by ECNetwork. So, I’m seeing a lot of potential within ECNetwork. (Emmanuel, interview 1) Through continued interaction with national officials and activities, ECNetwork is directly building trust with the government. Through the visibility that interaction with the government provides them, they begin to indirectly build trust with former and current members and partners and encourage them to reengage with ECNetwork in order to become part of the conversation. The closeness of ECNetwork was viewed as a positive for non-state actors, particularly because of the governments general mistrust of civil-service organizations. The trust that ECNetwork built with government made it possible for CSOs to still be heard. More than Planning Meetings: The Role of Organizer The final role within Williams’ framework (2011) is that of the Organizer. He describes this role as “often mak[ing] heavy time demands because of the logistics involved and the need to communicate and share information equally and transparently with a range of actors […] Being at the hub of these activities underscores the centrality of the boundary spanner’s position” (pg. 29). Each of the competencies below within the role of Organizer may seem mundane, but they take real skill and patience to execute with success. Inherent in each of these competencies is a requirement of patience and adaptability. Each competency is part of a process, working towards an end result, whether it is a small meeting, a large stakeholder gathering, development of a document, or development of a program. Each dimension, outlined below, relies on the one before, but things can go awry at any point so there needs to be attention collectively to all of them. In the following sections I provide an example or anecdote collected during my time with 133 ECNetwork relevant to understanding the complications that make utilizing each competency successfully a challenge. Organizer competency #1: Planning. The facilitator leading the first planning team meeting in Dodoma, Rehema discussed with me the tensions and frustrations that occur when you sit “in the middle” between government and non-state implementing actors. She told me a story about a project she worked on which was trying to facilitate regional government monitoring and support through procurement of vehicles that would allow them to access schools more easily and efficiently than with a car. Because the procurement process required a long discussion of where they would purchase the vehicles, how many they needed, and the price they would pay, the project didn’t receive the physical vehicles until a year after the project had ended. By that time the number of bikes they needed had grown and the price of the vehicles had increased, which meant that their original goal to provide all regional monitors with transportation wasn’t accomplished. Although not a project that ECNetwork was involved in, this example underscores the unforeseen challenges that can quickly derail even the best outlined plans when multiple parties with different agendas, sometimes conflicting, try to complete a seemingly straightforward task. Being a MLCA means that all planning is going to have to consider diverse opinions, desires, schedules, and requirements. Being knowledgeable of these and having the capacity to account for them in planning—sometimes adapting when things change unexpectedly—can be the difference between moving past the planning process or staying in a constant state of planning indefinitely. Organizer competency #2: Coordinating. The breadth of the coordinating activity that ECNetwork does was described by a partner organization member as “supporting everybody else 134 to make sure that things are moving” (Neema, interview 1). The competency of coordinating that ECNetwork enacts helps them to bring together multidisciplinary and multi-institutional stakeholders, forming subsets to serve as thematic hubs of expertise or purposeful committees utilized to plan and execute different agenda items. The perpetual change in the organizational and governmental landscape, both personnel and location, adds challenge. Having both the Ministry offices and the head offices of CSOs located in Dar meant that it was easier for meetings to be coordinated at a moment’s notice. Recently, however, the Ministries were moved to a new city, Dodoma, a minimum 9-hour bus ride away. This made the coordination of stakeholders much more difficult as there were fewer opportunities to meet informally, fewer windows where stakeholders would be in the same city, and less time when they were. Different from just planning one meeting, increasing distance between stakeholders made coordinating as a process that much more challenging. Organizer competency #3: Convening. Featured prominently during data collection, formal meetings are prevalent in this study. I began to develop an appreciation for the national culture and norms (Anderson-Levitt, 2002) of meetings in Tanzania that I observed. These meetings also were a showcase for the many interacting cultures at play in the Tanzanian ECED system. I view “culture as the making of meaning – meaning being beliefs and norms, understandings and know-how” (Anderson-Levitt, 2012, pg. 443). My experience with meetings in Tanzania most often consisted of multiple stakeholder groups (government, non-government, development agencies, etc.). These meetings had a consistent format that included a well-defined agenda with welcome and introductions, presentations, discussion, break-out groups, tea and meal breaks which served as welcome time for social interaction, summary of accomplishments, and concluding words. While the number of breaks varied by the length of the meetings, I never 135 experienced a ‘short’ meeting in Tanzania—meetings lasted several hours most often, occasionally events consisted of multiple day-long meetings (See Appendix D). This common culture of meetings served as a unifying space despite different professional cultures across stakeholders. Even when the planning and coordination of stakeholders goes well and everyone is in the same city at the same time, convening the meeting as planned can still be derailed. Several full days during my data collection were spent at meetings (See Appendix D). On one particularly memorable morning, Irene asked me to be at the office by 7am so that she and Moses could pick me up on the way to a hotel where a conference was being held by a partner organization. I arrived at the office just before 7am. It had been raining all night and continued into the morning. I had taken a bajaji to avoid being splashed by every car going by on my walk. I waited on the steps outside the office, and at 7:30 I received a call from Moses to let me know that because of the rain there were traffic jams, and because of the traffic jams it would still be “some minutes” until he and Irene would reach the office to pick me up. I told him, “Not a problem”, that I would just wait until they arrived. At about 8am they arrived and we drove down the road about 100 feet before we came to a standstill in traffic. Considering the conference was supposed to have started by 8:30, this was not good. As usual, Moses was optimistic and thought we would be to the hotel by 9am, and Irene was more realistic and said 9:30 at the earliest. We slowly moved, inch by inch, celebrating each time we gained a few yards, until we finally arrived at 9:20am. In the case of the first ECED planning team meeting in Dodoma, getting everyone together kept getting rescheduled for later. At the start of the planning and coordination there was an early spring date planned and coordinated with attendees, but then a key stakeholder 136 would have a conflict so the convening of the group got pushed back. This delayed the first meeting by over two months, and as one official from ECNetwork put it, they wouldn’t know if they had been successfully convened until the meeting started. From planning to execution, ECNetwork has to engage their stakeholder network to keep things moving forward. Nothing moves quickly, but by utilizing their roles and competencies appropriately ECNetwork is able to facilitate progress. What Isn’t Going On In my analysis you will have noticed that there was more emphasis on some roles and competencies than others. It is important to remember that the roles and competencies that a MLCA like ECNetwork takes on often vary over time and evolve as the ECED system necessitates and evolves itself. Currently, for ECNetwork the role that is in the highest demand is its role as Reticulist. Because this role is primarily concerned with diplomacy, network building, relationship building, and communicating, it is no surprise that ECNetwork is investing much of their time on it. The revitalization and repositioning of ECNetwork after an absence requires that they rebuild and repair the connections that weakened with lack of engagement. Referring to the table outlining Williams’ boundary spanner roles, I have highlighted those which I used in my analysis of ECNetwork (See Table 2). In the role of Organizer, while I 137 Role ® Reticulist Entrepreneur Competency Networking Brokering Competency Managing Multiple Accountabilities Competency Diplomacy and Political Skills Creativity and Innovation Competency Communicating Negotiating Risk Taking Competency Competency Organizer Planning Servicing Interpreter Building Inter- personal Relationships Listening and Empathizing Framing and Sensemaking Coordinating Tolerating Monitoring Diversity Trust Building Conflict Resolution Convening Table 2: MLCA Roles and Competencies Currently Enacted by ECNetwork (Adapted from Williams 2011, pg. 28) observed and discussed planning, coordinating, and convening with participants, the competencies of servicing and monitoring were not observed during my data collection. It may be these roles will evolve over time. This current period of their work, as previously stated, is focused on building relationships. As they continue to conduct meetings and make progress on the development of a national ECED plan, their focus will shift to include monitoring and servicing of the multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder implantation process. Because their members monitor and service their own smaller projects, ECNetwork doesn’t draw on these competencies unless there is a larger process that crosses sectors and stakeholder groups. My analysis of the enacted competencies of my focal MLCA, ECNetwork, differs from what Williams described for the role of Entrepreneur. There was very little that I observed or heard that could be categorized as risk taking, creativity and innovation, or negotiating. Unlike with the role of Organizer, where the phase of current processes was the likely explanation for 138 lack of evidence of competencies, these three competencies are more likely not demonstrated due to contextual factors. Because Tanzania is a weak state, where the government relies heavily on the implementation of programs and plans by non-state actors, they have an increased need to build and strengthen their legitimacy through other means. As mentioned in Chapter 2, ways of indirectly controlling and legitimizing non-state and NGO program implementation often have to do with controlling the shape of what is implemented. This indirect control is often done through “engaging non-state actors in policy dialogue, and formulating policies that provide the framework for service providers; setting minimum standards and enforcing them, licensing, accrediting and facilitating providers, and safeguarding consumers; contracting out government- financed services to NSPs or contracting in the support of NSPs to government services; and entering into mutual agreements for jointly financed collaboration between the state and NSPs” (Batley & Mcloughlin, 2010, pg. 136). As a fragile state, the government needs to maintain their place of power in the hierarchy. I was told stories about ties that were cut between the government and other NGOs because of the organization’s direct criticism. So the issue was, they were more of advocating than being part of implementing for the education…So, they will come out with the, some images from the school where children are not sitting well, are not having good classrooms, but ok, that’s one thing, ‘so government is working to fund to do that, what are you also supporting to implement that? (Samuel, interview 1) There is a danger to criticizing the government without putting forth an effort to assist in the improvement of the problem you are highlighting. ECNetwork recognizes this and learns from its member organizations as they handle interactions with government around the need for improvements in the system. Samuel, from a partner INGO, describes his 139 organizations understanding of this and adjustments in navigating issues that need to be addressed: Like now, we realized that we are saying too much on infrastructure, but we are not doing anything on infrastructure. So, [we] start looking for the fund, and now we have some fund for infrastructure. So, we are speaking something, also we are part of the solution as well. (Samuel, interview 1) Knowing this, ECNetwork must tread carefully and not be too forceful when discussing plans with the government. They appear to believe it is important for their relationship to continue to be a positive and trusted one. Trying to get the government to take risks when it is already weak may be too much to ask. Due to the high level of international involvement in funding and influence on innovation in ECED—such as the current allure of the Nurturing Care Framework—ECNetwork would have a difficult time convincing the government to stray from these international prototype innovations which bring with them legitimacy and potential resources. Evolution of the MLCA As the ECED system in Tanzania evolves, so too will the roles of ECNetwork in response. In addition, the organizational makeup of ECNetwork is likely to evolve as well. It is important to reflect on this point and understand that the complexity of the roles that an MLCA has to carry out might in the future require additional staff. This is probable as the MLCA roles are not carried out in isolation, but rather many activities and processes are occurring all at once. A thoughtfully assembled organizational setup is required to maintain high levels of engagement throughout the system. 140 While the director or lead of the MLCA should be carefully chosen because of the high level of political and bureaucratic situations they find themselves in, it really takes a dedicated team of individuals to accomplish their purpose. For ECNetwork, the connections and relationships which Moses has developed throughout his personal and professional life means that he began his position already possessing network connections with high-level government officials, directors and administrators from a variety of stakeholder organizations. This meant that it was more likely that Moses would be able to contact these officials successfully, be given the opportunity to be heard, and be thought of when events or meetings were occurring where ECNetwork should be in attendance. These relationships also provided ECNetwork as an organization with a base level of trust because of the trust that existed between Moses and others. This individual trust helped to ease worries that remained in stakeholders’ minds because of ECNetwork’s period of dormancy following the previous administration’s mismanagement. These benefits that ECNetwork enjoys as a result of the individual ease the enacting of certain roles, but alone Moses would not have the capacity to carry out the full mandate of ECNetwork. Currently, ECNetwork has limited resources and only consists of two staff administrators in addition to Moses. Each of the additional two administrators works behind the scenes at large meetings where ECNetwork is a co-chair or host. Often times, there is a need for ECNetwork to travel to meetings around the country or region, but this doesn’t mean that day to day tasks are set aside. Depending on the event, either Moses, Edwin, and/or Irene may attend. For example, during my observations there were several days where one or more of ECNetwork would stay at the office while others went to meetings across town or across the country. Like any organization there are also clerical tasks which need constant attention such as newsletters, meeting minutes, and trip planning. While the budget and accounting work for ECNetwork is currently being 141 overseen by another organization, eventually this will require ECNetwork to build this capacity and likely hire new staff. Many factors go into deciding how large an organization is necessary to function as a MLCA. In Tanzania, because ECNetwork is situated as a network organization, they are able to rely on members and partners to do much of the ‘leg work’ of gathering on the ground information. Additionally, because of the high level of NGOs and non-state actors involved in the ECED implementation processes in Tanzania, research and lessons learned from projects are often financed and shared by larger national or international organizations. In an ECED system where there is less NGO and non-state actor involvement, it may be necessary for an MLCA to take on additional work load due to less external assistance. Conclusion The role of an MLCA, such as ECNetwork, in an ECED system is dynamic and intricate. To simply describe it as a role of coordination diminishes the diverse and complex tasks that they undertake. The position they hold and the mandate they have been given places them as a bridge between stakeholders who would have very few opportunities to connect otherwise. Williams’ framework provided a lens through which I explored the numerous and varied roles and competencies which ECNetwork has to undertake in order to serve as this bridge between government and non-state actors. The roles utilize skills and competencies (such as prior connections and relationships) which administrators of ECNetwork brought to their work and other competencies gained over time through dynamic learning and interactions with stakeholders. Through the work that this MLCA and similar MLCAs do, they develop a unique expertise for coordination through the strengthening of each role and competency which 142 comprise their complex tasks. In an ECED system like Tanzania’s where stakeholders are diverse and have varying levels of access to other stakeholders, particularly access to national level government, ECNetwork provides a rare opportunity for stakeholders to build relationships, receive and share information, access resources, and participate in system building activities. These opportunities are provided by ECNetwork through their enacting of many roles and competencies, leading to a more cohesive and coordinated ECED system. To sum up the way in which ECNetwork approaches their work within the mess of stakeholders and often unpredictable circumstances of the ECED system, I was provided with a fitting metaphor by the weather. There was lots of discussion of the issues the massive amount of rain caused in Dar during my last several weeks in the field, and I could see the results clearly: I noticed the number of pot-holes and breaks in the road that had appeared over the last few weeks. With every rain, more appeared. This slowed traffic down even further as cars, bajajis, and piki pikis had to navigate around these hazards, often hidden by miniature rivers flowing down the roads with them. I had noticed workers patching these holes on days when the water had emptied from them. With each rain, sand was washing out from the sides of the road and likely from underneath causing little collapses. Riding in cars and bajajis during this period of time I was amazed at the calmness of the drivers and the willingness to deal with what nature had dealt them. “It is good for the farms,” I recall one bajaji driver remarking. For ECNetwork, their work is being in the car while bureaucracy, politics, and stakeholders crash around them, with both positive and negative impacts. The road is treacherous, full of put holes, puddles, and jams, but every once in a while, the sky clears and there is an opportunity to move forward. For ECNetwork, it appears that the knowledge that the sky does in fact periodically clear is enough to keep them in the car, moving forward, no matter how near or far their destination. 143 Enacting and strengthening their capacity to carry out these roles despite the difficult circumstances is the main focus of ECNetwork as the MLCA within the Tanzanian ECED system. However, because of the relationships and capacities developed through performing these complex roles, ECNetwork has taken on an additional role as advocate in order to not only coordinate the system, but improve it. In the following chapter I explore ECNetwork’s participation in advocacy in order to better understand how an MLCA might utilize the roles and competencies involved in coordination to fulfill other needs they find within ECED systems. 144 CHAPTER 5 ADVOCACY: MORE THAN PUSHING SOMETHING FORWARD Introduction In the last chapter I discussed the ways in which the officials of ECNetwork utilize different roles and competencies to perform as a mid-level coordinating actor (MLCA). Focusing on their roles and competencies is key to understanding how this type of actor functions within the context of coordinating an existing national early childhood system, but does little to help us understand how they can influence the shape of that system. While these roles and competencies are important to conceptualizing mid-level coordinating actors within early childhood systems, there are context-specific activities I discovered, central to ECNetwork’s organizational mission that did not fall within the four roles Williams outlines. However, these other activities, conceptualized together as a role, can help us imagine the potentially vital role an MLCA could have on an ECED system. Facilitated by the connections made through its coordination mandate, ECNetwork developed strong links with national government officials which provided opportunities for them to act as advocate for their members and the ECED agenda. Through examination of policy documents, interviews, and observations, I found that this mid-level coordinating actor was ideally positioned to advocate on ECED policy issues to national government officials. In this chapter I will discuss the advocacy context of Tanzania, including the factors which promote or limit different actors’ participation in this type of advocacy. Next, I will discuss different types of advocacy actors conceptualized in the literature in order to understand ECNetwork’s engagement in policy advocacy. This will be followed by a discussion of ECNetwork’s advocacy at the national level, the phases of their advocacy process, the strategies 145 and tactics they use, and how each part of this process capitalizes on the roles and competencies that ECNetwork developed as a result of their position in the ECED system. I will end with a brief discussion of how past attempts to coordinate the Tanzanian early childhood system have utilized advocacy, what went wrong, and contemplate how greater capacity in certain roles and competencies could have impacted the outcome. ECNetwork as Advocate “Advocacy is just pushing, you know, it’s like pushing a certain agenda to make sure that it is implemented” (Emmanuel, interview 1). Although not an initial focus of my case study, advocacy kept coming up as a key activity that ECNetwork was deeply involved in throughout their work. Because of this frequency, during analysis of interviews and observations I added it as a code within my coding scheme and noted whenever advocacy was talked about directly. Soon it became clear, however, that even if a participant didn’t use the word ‘advocacy’ during discussions and observations, there were roles and competencies that ECNetwork utilized which could be directly linked to their advocacy practices. Because mid-level actors have been highlighted as important but under-studied actors within ECED systems, I explore advocacy as a potentially vital practice and conceptualize ECNetwork as an advocacy actor. Given their role within Tanzania’s multisectoral system—as the only national multi- sectoral ECED network in Tanzania—the advocacy they engage in could be seen as unique to this individual organization. In another ECED system this actor may not engage in advocacy in the same ways, or at all. Even so, because of a mid-level coordinating actor’s position within ECED systems, it is highly likely that they would speak on behalf of the actors they coordinate in order to improve ECED. Therefore, an initial example of how this actor practices advocacy is important as it may be a way that ECED mid-level coordinating actors might provide unique 146 system support through acting as “essential intermediaries between civil society and the state and that advocacy enables minorities with limited political power to participate” (Onyx et al., 2010). To develop this initial understanding, I question how ECNetwork compares to other well studied types of policy advocacy actors, who their advocacy is directed towards, and what strategies and tactics they use to carry the advocacy out. Factors Impacting Opportunities for Advocacy Because not all actors and organizations have the ability or option to advocate as they please, the structures that shape advocacy opportunities are important. The label and positioning of an actor engaged in advocacy have implications for the focus of their advocacy, who they target their efforts towards, and the tools they have at their disposal. In an article published in 1997 by Lutabingwa and Gray about NGOs in Sub-Saharan Africa, they offer that “the purpose of engaging in policy advocacy is to positively influence public policy for the benefit of advocating group members and/or constituents” (pg. 35). They go on to say that because NGOs have been working on the ground and have expertise in the areas they advocate, it is important that NGOs have a voice in policy discussions because they “represent a segment of the population with little voice in policy matters” (pg. 36). However, NGO is a broad category; the type and positioning of a particular NGO, along with the political climate of the specific country context and policies on NGO activity, can open up or limit the opportunities NGOs have to engage in policy advocacy. The case of Tanzania then must be couched within an understanding of the specific contextual factors. These factors can be gleaned through the National NGO policy, the government mandates given to ECNetwork, and observation and description of current political climate. 147 In Tanzania, the Community Development Department within the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children (MoHCDGEC) is responsible for the registration of all NGOs working in Tanzania. However, the policy and responsibility to coordinate activities of these NGOs is held by the Office of the Vice President. The National NGO Policy (2001) defines an NGO as: A voluntary grouping of individuals or organizations which is autonomous and not-for-profit sharing; organized locally at the grassroots level, nationally or internationally for the purpose of enhancing the legitimate economic, social and/or cultural development or lobbying or advocacy issues of public interest or interest of a group of individuals or organizations. (National NGO Policy, 2001, pg. 5) It goes on to describe the relationship between NGOs and the government as one of partnership: The Government recognizes the [significant] role and contributions of NGOs in the society and considers them as important partners in the development process. It is, therefore, in the interest of the Government to create a conducive and enabling environment to ensure that NGOs potentials are fully utilized. (National NGO Policy, 2001, pg. 7) This short 9-page policy doesn’t go into any details regarding the code of conduct for NGOs in Tanzania, but an outline of this is particularly important in relation to advocacy. For more detail in this area, the Non-Governmental Organizations Act was enacted by the Tanzanian Parliament in December 2002. This Act includes Article 25 which established the National Council for Non- Governmental Organizations (NaCONGO). This umbrella organization was then tasked with creating a code of conduct to “facilitate the self-regulation of Non-Governmental Organizations” 148 (Parliment of the United Republic of Tanzania, 2002, pg. 14). However, in reviewing the NGO Policy, the NGO Act, and the NGO code of conduct, there is no mention of advocacy that outlines who can advocate to what level of government. Therefore, to understand how advocacy happens and its protocols are understood, I questioned participants. Once I had established the actors who are involved in advocacy, I asked participants to show me which actors advocate to which other actors. According to Edwin, one of the ECNetwork officials, the flow of advocacy occurs in the following way: They (community-based organizations - CBOs) can do advocacy here and do advocacy at regional, at district level to change some by-laws or some regulations at regional level. So, yeah, when it comes to National that’s why these networks work, even the government do not call the CBOs to national level, they call these (networks) because they know they have members down here. That’s what we expect. But here, they go direct because the CBOs they can do advocacy with these. They go because they are implementing like [name of org] implementing in Mwanza. So, if there is some issues in Mwanza that they want to work the local government, they will use these community development, local organizations. (Edwin, interview 2) As Edwin explained, it is not the norm for ground level implementers and organizations to advocate to the national government, and the national government doesn’t approach them when they need information. Rather, the thematic networks, like ECNetwork, bridge between these two worlds and advocate on behalf of the whole. Moses described it as he helped me to draw a map, 149 So, we can put in national networks, which is…put national networks…Those can take issues, depending on the thematic, to the government. If it is an issue of education, if it is child protection, ECD…national thematic networks can take issue to the Prime Minister, but, for the advocacy. (Moses, interview 2) As with several other thematic networks in Tanzania—such as education (TENMET)—networks have become successful at organizing and advocating on issues transmitted to them from their members on the ground. Through interviews with ECNetwork and local, national, and international NGOs in their network, I drew a clear picture of the ins and outs of NGO government access in Tanzania. International NGOs can advocate through their local and regional partners. As an official from ECNetwork explained “INGO don’t do anything in terms of advocacy. They are supporting advocacy work. Because, remember, advocacy is more sometimes it’s classed as a political kind of approach. So, most of the INGOs…they’re not comfortable.” It is difficult for local and regionally focused NGOs to reach the national level to advocate. Therefore, depending on the issue, a network/umbrella organization will be used to consolidate an advocacy message and take it to national level. During these same interviews discussing the ECED system stakeholders, a word that kept repeating in relation to ECNetwork was ‘mandate’. Although not a government entity, ECNetwork was given an informal mandate by government, similar to the formal mandates given to ministries and government agencies assigning them to perform certain tasks. Although informal, ECNetwork’s mandate was agreed upon during the national ECED forum. For local organizations or communities like local organizations CBOs or people’s organizations, to do, to engage directly with advocacy, I mean engaging 150 government is almost too impossible. I think I’ve mentioned it earlier? Yeah, they have to look for like these national NGOs and then national NGOs again they have to look for…the networks who have those mandates that can engage the government directly. (Irene, interview 2) This mandate, in a way, helped ECNetwork to maintain close ties and continuous working relationships with the government even though the political climate was described by interviewees and discussed during observations as a “shrinking civil society space.” …having ECNetwork as a co-chair in a political economy where [the government is] not very comfortable in the idea of any non-state leadership, but to get that position of co-chair was already a big step. (Henry, interview 1) Within this context, ECNetwork stands out as an organization that is not limited by the same factors which limit local, national, and international NGOs. For ECNetwork, their history of working with the government, their established position as the coordinating organization for ECED activity within the country, and individual relational ties between individuals in ECNetwork and National Government, positively impact their ability to engage in policy advocacy at the national level when other NGOs cannot. So, we would rely much on [ECNetwork] to make sure we get most of the information, the intervention on the ground, the reports about this from [ECNetwork]. This is what I’m seeing [ECNetwork], not only playing role in the development of this, but in the course of implementing we will rely much on whatever is happening on the ground… (Emmanuel, interview 1) Because of the distinctive position ECNetwork holds in the ECED advocacy space—the only multi-sectoral ECED network and MLCA—understanding how they operate as an advocacy 151 actor adds complexity and detail to their larger position as the mid-level coordinating actor in the Tanzanian ECED system. Positioning ECNetwork as an Advocacy Actor While ECNetwork was established with a mandate of coordination, through this work they are actively involved in speaking on behalf of their members and partners from across the country. This advocacy is ongoing and happens in both periodic needs-driven and sustained ways. Because of their access to the national government and focus on ECED national impact, their advocacy focuses on policy change and on improving the support given to those implementing programs which current and future policies call for. Advocacy is practiced by many different types of actors. There are a variety of strategies actors take, an array of tactics they use, as well as different people or groups they are aiming to impact. To better understand and detail ECNetwork’s advocacy practices, it is useful to look at other similarly positioned actors to explore how ECNetwork aligns with previously conceptualized advocacy actors: advocacy by non-profit organizations, advocacy coalitions, and transnational advocacy networks. Advocacy Actors Nonprofit advocacy. “Nonprofits are collective endeavors that, in theory at least, are supposed to respond to the twin failures of the market and government…[as well as] places where individuals come together to identify shared priorities and mobilize for communal welfare” (Grønbjerg & Prakash, 2017, pg. 880). ECNetwork can be categorized as a nonprofit organization, but this is a broad category and has implications based on country context as legal definitions vary. Another definition that is offered in the advocacy organization literature is the ‘third sector’. The third-sector is defined as, “organizations that may be funded by government, but are legally independent of it” (Onyx et al., 2010, pg. 43), as well as nonprofit. ECNetwork 152 fits well in the category of third-sector because of their nonprofit status, their legal independence from government, and because they aren’t funded by government, but there is no reason that in the future this might not change if the opportunity arises. This category of actors is seen by many as intermediaries which use advocacy to give those in civil society with little political power a voice to participate in state and national discussions (Foley & Edwards, 1996; Onyx et al., 2010). By coordinating their members and providing opportunities to come together and discuss issues which should be raised, ECNetwork provides a pipeline for even the smallest organization or community to have its concerns heard at the highest level of government. The nonprofit literature often discusses nonprofit actors as having two means by which to benefit society, through service provision or through advocacy (Hwang & Suarez, 2019). It was made clear through interviews that ECNetwork was not meant to and shouldn’t act as a provider of services. You cannot have this organization, as a network organization, implementing on the ground, and then you have a community-based organization also implementing on the ground; so there is a competition there. (Baraka, interview 1) ECNetwork maintaining their position as an umbrella network and coordinator of non-state actors is important not only because of how they have been mandated to function, but also because of the essential nature of their positive relationships with partners and members. Edwin states this clearly when he describes what would happen if ECNetwork became involved in implementation and service provision: You are not empowering your organizations, you are disempowering them. Those were some of the arguments, they say, you are making ECNetwork a giant, stronger than its members.” (Edwin, interview 1) 153 As the leader of a network, ECNetwork should work to empower its members and highlight opportunities for members to build or utilize their own capacities. Edwin touches on the fact that the power that ECNetwork has is gained through their connections to network members. ECNetwork gains their opportunity to impact society, and in turn the ECED system, through advocacy. A common definition for advocacy is “any attempt to influence the decisions of an institutional elite on behalf of collective interest” (Jenkins, 1987, pg. 297). This definition fits well with ECNetwork as the coordinator and collective voice of the ECED civil society organizations that make up its membership. While its members have more access to advocate for themselves at the local or district level, ECNetwork has access and relationships with national government officials and the policy making process that its members lack. Therefore, ECNetwork directs its advocacy towards the national level as it is these “institutional elites” that they provide access to through membership in their network. When discussing access to government during an interview with a member of an INGO, Eva explained to me that the easiest and most common way that non-state actors have the ability to be heard by government is through networks such as ECNetwork. She concluded, by saying, “So that is one of the ways whereby like, as [an INGO] we get like…our voices are heard through that way” (Eva, interview 1). Because ECNetwork is made up of both its members (national and local civil service organizations) and partners (international NGOs, funding organizations, UN global organizations), the advocacy that they do is informed by more than just the national context. Therefore, to understand their advocacy practices it is important expand beyond advocacy done by single organizations and instead view ECNetwork’s advocacy through the concepts of advocacy networks and advocacy coalitions. 154 Advocacy coalitions. Generally described, advocacy coalitions are a “mechanism for groups of individual policy participants to aggregate their resources and expertise to increase their influence in mapping their preferences into public policies” (Weible, Ingold, Nohrstedt, Henry, & Jenkins-Smith, 2019, pg. 2). First conceptualized by Sabatier (1988), these coalitions are held together and advocate based on a common set of beliefs which they want to see incorporated and addressed through public policy. Outcomes achieved by advocacy coalitions often result in compromises with government to incorporate some components proposed by the coalition through their advocacy. This concept allows for inclusion of members external to ECNetwork members as a part of the advocacy process, further strengthening and sustaining the advocacy messaging, and potentially reaching a broader audience. ECNetwork can be observed building advocacy coalitions as they reach out to other actors within the Tanzanian ECED system who interact with policy makers or have an interest in the policy process. If there is a study of the research of the whatever, there is a coming issue that we want to address either to doing implementation or you see a policy issue, it’s the role of the ECNetwork now bringing those members together to come up with space for discussions. (Moses, interview 1) Shortly before my data collection in Tanzania, ECNetwork had been integral in calling together stakeholders for a national meeting on ECED. Because of the importance of all stakeholders, regardless of membership to ECNetwork, partners from non-member organizations such as INGOs, universities, and research organizations were invited to attend and take part in discussions. The inclusion of these actors in the ECED advocacy coalition that ECNetwork is building increases the relevance of their advocacy for a broader audience through strengthening messaging with diverse research and perspectives. Additionally, relationships built through these 155 diverse gatherings resulted in new opportunities for networking and sharing advocacy messages. During my stay I accompanied an NGO representative to a local university as she had been invited to discuss ECED issues and opportunities in Tanzania to current early education students. Although not a member of ECNetwork, because this university representative was included, ECNetwork and its members gained opportunities for spreading advocacy messages to new audiences. Through their mandate of coordination, ECNetwork builds and maintains relationships with a variety of ECED actors and convenes them when there is a need to respond to an issue. Therefore, their advocacy messages are not necessarily the product of one source; it was explained to me by ECNetwork and HfC administrators that these messages are formed and agreed upon through gathering of stakeholders. For example, as we were doing the ECD national policy, um, it wasn’t any…the policy document was not just shared direct to the partners, it was going through ECNetwork, ECNetwork would be the one to kind of bring in all partners, review, and then go with one statement on what exactly was felt by the partners. (Rose, interview 1) Utilizing their network to provide members and partners the opportunity to give collective input or feedback on policies and programs was discussed by study participants as an ongoing process. Whether it was through gathering a diverse group of members and partners to discuss and create initial plans, or full network information dispersal and feedback consolidation, ECNetwork facilitates opportunities for all stakeholders to be process participants. Ownership was discussed as a crucial factor impacting the successful implementation of any policy or program. By giving 156 stakeholders opportunities to be a part of the process, their feelings of ownership increases and the likelihood of them implementing or abiding by new policies and programs increases. Transnational advocacy networks. Transnational advocacy networks are particularly relevant to ECNetwork’s role as co-chair of the Task Team developing the ECED National Action Plan. Transnational advocacy networks are: …inter-organisational, goal-directed networks consisting of diverse member organisations that pursue changes in policies, practices and behaviour. These networks must navigate their members’ diversity in terms of geographic location, cultural and social differences, capacity and resources, while also pursuing a collective purpose, identity and strategy (Arensman, van Wessel, & Hilhorst, 2017, pg. 3) Because the Task Team for the national action plan includes local, national, and international NGOs, global organizations, as well as government officials from all of the relevant ministries, and academic specialists, TANs allow for an expanded scope of actors to be involved in determining advocacy messaging the network transmits. ECNetwork has to navigate carefully advocating for a more diverse group. ECNetwork’s ability to continue their own work of coordinating and advocating for the ECED system often depends on these large INGOs to contribute to the cost of hosting events—including per diems and transportation. Therefore, ECNetwork’s advocacy practices must adapt and consider new information and perspectives which may not be involved in the advocacy it undertakes for its members. As Moses explains his intentions on using these additional perspectives and information, he wants to: …have [ECNetwork] as a hub of information, coming of course down from implementation, but even from coming international level, where for example we 157 have some conferences, some interventions, so [ECNetwork] could be in the position at least to share the information… (Moses, interview 1) This is most obvious in the prominence that international frameworks, currently the Nurturing Care Framework, take in planning conversations and on meeting agendas. At the African ECED conference in late 2018, the Tanzanian National ECED forum shortly after, and the first ECED planning team meeting in mid-2019 NCF was discussed as a part of the agenda. Particularly in a low-income country context where there is a high-level of financial investment by foreign governments, their influence in decision making and message formulation shouldn’t be forgotten. You know, WHO is working with the government, not with individuals, and globally, Nurturing Care Framework’s hosted by the WHO. They’re coming down again in the country level, we are talking about WHO…when you come up with some processes in the budget, we’d have liked to ask WHO to support the process, but also even the UNICEF to support the processes. (Moses, interview 1) WHO and UNICEF had already introduced the NCF before Tanzania had reinvigorated its in- country ECED dialogue. Moses recognized that these partners are already talking with the government about NCF contextualization and implementation, so from the beginning it was a backdrop to all future conversations. Beyond the benefits of using an accepted international framework as a starting point for their own ECED national plans, there is the ever-present need for funding these initiatives. World Bank, WHO, and UNICEF are sort of the owners of the Nurturing Care Framework. World Bank has a significant investment in ECD, pipeline investment in ECD. And to what extent they again, they come and engage in this 158 process—they’ve been invited at each of the stages—they’ve not engaged; however, they will be a big player in ECD going forward. They have a pipeline investment in ECD in Tanzania, which is still being worked on, so I can see…I can see them being a fundamental sort of player in some aspect going forward. (Henry, interview 1) The integration of the ECED system could be coordinated in multiple ways. The fact that this framework is looming large in international ECED conversations signals that there is likely to be funding support for those countries who utilize it. Regardless of the actors involved in the formulation of the advocacy messages that ECNetwork communicates to the national government, there are choices that need to be made about how those messages are communicated. ECNetwork makes decisions on how to frame advocacy messages and the methods they use to present them to national officials is a key decision that can impact whether and how the advocacy is received. Advocacy Strategies and Tactics “The process of undertaking active interventions with the explicit goal of influencing government policy is known as advocacy” (Cullerton, Donnet, Lee, & Gallegos, 2018, pg. 1). This definition of advocacy focuses much more on the process of advocacy, rather than the outcome of advocacy, as explained in the previously stated definitions. How advocacy is done— the strategies and tactics used—and why chosen strategies and tactics are able to be taken up are all important components to understanding an advocacy actor. ECNetwork operates with a particular strategy and utilizes different tactics to facilitate their advocacy practice. There are several studies which can help to advance the conceptual understanding of ECNetwork in this area. The strategy used by ECNetwork is explained 159 succinctly by Onyx et al. (2009) in their article describing the strategy taken by some nonprofit organizations in the Australian context. They describe the strategy as “advocacy with gloves on” (pg. 43), meaning organizations advocating to government take a non-confrontational approach that works within existing institutional structures and practices. This strategy is carried out through institutional tactics such as “responding to government policy developments…and participating in government committees and enquiries” (Onyx et al., 2010, pg. 45). These institutional tactics are contrasted to “radical” tactics such as sit ins or demonstrations, more grassroots type advocacy. These authors warn that there are tradeoffs to taking the institutional approach and utilizing tactics which are often closed to a majority of others. Because of the position ECNetwork holds, they have to continually assess when to bring forward issues from the ground in order to elevate issues important to their members and partners while working within institutional structures and bureaucratic realities. Learning from the past failure of the integrated early childhood policy (IECP), ECNetwork and other NGO officials explained that grassroot efforts years ago to develop an IECP didn’t account for these bureaucratic realities. This time, when trying to develop a plan for holistic and integrated ECED, ECNetwork and other stakeholders are more aware of the institutional structures, bureaucratic realities, and political will that tempers expectations and possibilities for the ECED plan’s shape and outcomes. A similar conceptual frame that is used to understand actor’s choice of activities to influence the policy making process is insider vs. outsider tactics (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014; Mosley, 2011; Onyx et al., 2010). These tactics are described by where effort is directed within the overall system: Insider tactics are intended to change policy by working directly with policy- makers and other institutional elites that emphasize working ‘inside the system.’ 160 Outsider tactics, sometimes termed indirect tactics (Mosley 2011), refer to extra- institutional tactics that emphasize working outside the system, such as public education; mass media; protests, boycotts, and demonstrations. (Almog-Bar, 2014, pg. 21) Because ECNetwork is an umbrella network, the leader and voice of national and some international organizations working in ECED, their choice of advocacy strategies and tactics will reflect their position in relation to the rest of their network; they make choices based not only on their own capacity, but also in response to efforts already underway by their members and partners who focus on more grassroot, ground level issues. Therefore, while network members may be engaged in both insider and indirect/outsider tactics, because of the close ties to the national government ECNetwork maintains, it is most logical for the benefit of their network for them to primarily engage in insider tactics. In a study of advocacy tactics used to influence government nutrition policy, Cullerton et al. (2018) used data gathered from three of their previous studies and a systematic literature review to build a conceptual model. This model was developed in response to the desire to understand how resource-poor organizations could have greater impact on the policy making process. Although ECNetwork is a key actor within the Tanzanian ECED system, the network is in a process of rebuilding after a dormant period; current leadership including only a staff of three, and grant funding being limited, their resources can be considered low and tenuous. These factors make Cullerton and colleague’s framework relevant to understanding ECNetwork’s strategies in policy advocacy in the current context. Within Cullerton’s framework, essential tactics include investing in relationships, gathering intelligence, developing a clear unified solution, and employing or developing the 161 skills/traits of a policy entrepreneur (flexible, opportunistic, persistent, credible). Similar to an understanding of phases of advocacy, “the strategies may appear consecutive, however their implementation should be more iterative, with several steps occurring simultaneously if possible” (Cullerton et al., 2018, pg. 3). In addition to being a framework focused on a low- resource organization’s advocacy strategies, these strategies map well onto Williams’ framework. The table below (Table 3) shows how these two frameworks relate to each other: Williams, 2011 Building inter-personal relationships Networking, Monitoring, Communicating Communicating, Negotiating, Framing and sensemaking, Co-ordinating Diplomacy and political skills, Brokering, Trust building Cullerton, 2018 Investing in relationships Gathering intelligence Developing clear unified solutions Employing or developing skills/traits of a policy entrepreneur: flexible, opportunistic, persistent, credible Table 3: Comparison of William’s Boundary Spanner Competencies and Cullerton’s Framework of Tactics Resource-poor Organizations Can Use to Impact the Policy-making Process Because of the ways that I have already been discussing ECNetwork’s roles and competencies, Cullerton’s framework provides an easy transition to thinking about these roles and competencies within the context of a new purpose. Understanding the policy advocacy work that ECNetwork engages in helps to further define their work towards coordinating the Tanzanian ECED system. Phases of the Policy Advocacy Process Because of ECNetwork’s focus on policy advocacy, it makes sense to relate their advocacy practices to the phases of the policy making process. Although many different theories of the policy making process exist, currently there are five phases which are generally accepted: agenda setting, policy formation, decision making, implementation, and evaluation. Although 162 scholars believe that the influence of advocacy by nonprofits is greatest during the agenda setting stage (Andrews & Edwards, 2004; Jenkins, 2006), there hasn’t been sufficient research done, “to show any clear results that link advocacy activities to different public policy-making stages or phases” (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2014, pg. 27). Paired with these five phases of the policy-making process, there have been several phases put forward to categorize how each part of this process can be impacted or influenced. The table below (Table 4) links the five phases of the policy-making process to how each is influenced: Five Phases of the Policy-Making Process 1. Agenda Setting 2. Policy Formation 3. Decision Making 4. Implementation 5. Evaluation Phases of Influencing Policy-Making Getting an issue onto the political agenda Securing favorable decisions Ensuring that decisions are implemented Making sure that these activities create favorable social outcomes Table 4: Phases of Influencing Policy-making (Jenkins, 2006, pg. 321) Discussing how policy-making is influenced during different phases, provides an opportunity to look at the way ECNetwork’s roles and competencies are utilized to advocate in order to impact each phase. If we take each of these phases and look at the type of activities that ECNetwork engages in, a clearer understanding of the arc of their advocacy work in the policy-making process can be better explored. ECNetwork’s Involvement in the Policy Making Process While policy advocacy is not the only, or even the main reason that ECNetwork was established, the roles and competencies that they have developed and exhibited during this case study aid in an understanding of how they can be utilized in practices outside of the normal day- 163 to-day activities of planning and conducting meetings, coordinating ECED actor activities, and networking with stakeholders. In addition to understanding how ECNetwork is positioned as an actor within policy advocacy and how different phases in the policy making process provides opportunities for them to interact in different ways, it is important to look at the strategies and tactics used to promote their policy advocacy messages. It is through these strategies and tactics that connections between the roles and competencies discussed in earlier chapters can be identified and mapped onto the policy advocacy process directly. Using examples of advocacy strategies from the literature, I will show how the general roles and competencies that ECNetwork utilizes generally in all of their work as a network are valuable and utilized extensively in the policy advocacy process specifically. Agenda setting – Getting an issue onto the political agenda. Overwhelmingly, ECNetwork and their members have the most involvement in the agenda setting phase of the policy making process. The bridging that ECNetwork does between non-state actors and national government officials is highly utilized while advocating to get issues onto the political agenda. According to Kingdon (2011), what gets on governmental agendas can be explained in three ways: through problems, politics, and visible participants. Focus on Problems. Problems get elevated and catch the attention of government officials through, “indicators, focusing events, and feedback” (Kingdon, 2011, pg. 197). For ECNetwork, all three of these avenues into piquing governmental interest can be seen through activities they coordinate and actions they take. Indicators. Indicators are used by government in two different ways, “to assess the magnitude of a problem and to become aware of changes in the problem” (Kingdon, 2011, pg.91). ECNetwork has access to research activities being carried out across the country by 164 implementing members and partners. Periodically partners such as Save the Children or UNICEF will host implementing groups working on similar issues to share their program progress and results. ECNetwork often attends these meetings and occasionally provides their own updates to the groups about their work with the government. For example, two officials from ECNetwork attended a meeting organized by UNICEF, where Moses presented an update on progress towards a timeline of priorities in the development of a national costed ECED plan (Week 1 observation notes). Additionally, several partners of ECNetwork do periodic needs assessments before beginning new projects. The results of these assessments are often presented to government officials in meetings and stakeholder gatherings. For example, after the completion of a situation analysis investigating the current state of ECED environments in a large urban city in Tanzania, the organization that commissioned the report held a stakeholder meeting which was attended by government officials from several levels of government and ministries, various ECED organizations (both national and international), and ECNetwork. Stakeholder gatherings like this one provide opportunities for ECNetwork to gain information for their advocacy, and begin engaging specific government officials who can be followed up with going forward. Assessments commissioned by ECNetwork partners have been integral in providing data and analyses that can help to garner national government attention. Through taking this new information from their partners to the government, ECNetwork is able to advocate for the initiation of further steps and connect government to programs their members have already started in response to the problems identified. Through the competencies of Communicating and Networking under the role of Reticulist, ECNetwork uses the data gathered by members and partners to highlight issues which 165 need attention or are already on the government’s priority agenda. But, just providing access to indicators isn’t the end of ECNetwork’s involvement in this area; interpretation of these indicators and anecdotal evidence add context and strengthen the message these indicators help ECNetwork to convey. For example, partners often gather anecdotes and stories along with data. Neema, the advocacy officer from HfC, explains that her objective related to advocacy is to, “get the real stuff from the classroom, and then package it in a certain way where it can be taken up to different actors for different actions” (Neema, interview 2). In this way the data that ECNetwork is able to carry to the government from their members and partners includes the context of the project and personal details which engage viewers on a deeper level. Often government officials are also invited to visit programs in their regions and are involved in the training and monitoring processes. Active involvement by implementers and partners to address identified problems is one reason the government responds well to this type of information, as they don’t have the resources to gather it themselves. However, because ECNetwork doesn’t collect any of the data first-hand, their ability to use indicators to highlight problems and get them on the national agenda are only as good as their members’ and partners’ ability to provide them. During the May 2019 planning team meeting, a slide was shown where there were lots of missing data points. Several members of the task team brought up that their organizations have those numbers, and they wondered then why they were blank. Rose described these data gaps and the issue in communication they result from: I just remember like yesterday when people were looking at the country profile data and where there are gaps – people were like, how comes while we have been working on this and that. And I think, yes, we are working on that but it’s not 166 being reported at the national level. So, I think there’s a little bit of disconnection from the regional to national level. (Rose, interview 1) Data reporting systems can be complex, but they can also be simple; the benefit of having an organization like ECNetwork is that if data gets sent to them, it is more likely to be used in their advocacy efforts and used by national policy makers in their decisions. Focusing Events. While these are often most apparent when they are disasters such as floods, fires, or epidemics, focusing events can also be provided by, “a powerful symbol that catches on, or the personal experience of a policy maker” (Kingdon, 2011, pg. 95). In a development context such as Tanzania I argue that it is just as likely that a focusing event could be a key event in an international or global movement. For example, part of the impetus for the increased focus on multisectoral plans in ECED comes from the release of the Nurturing Care Framework. The NCF was first announced in May of 2018, and then in Africa during a meeting in Nairobi in October 2018. It was then launched in Tanzania during the 2018 National ECED forum. Events like this, or previously the release of the Millennium Development Goals in the year 2000 and Sustainable Development Goals in the year 2015, provide increased external pressure to focus on specific issues and nudge government agendas. In two recent international agenda items, plans related to violence against women and children and contextualization of the Nurturing Care Framework, Tanzania has been named a pathfinder country (Moses, interview 1; Henry, interview 1). As a pathfinder country, Tanzania will be used as an example of contextualizing the NCF and a resource for other countries trying to do the same. This is a motivating factor for ECNetwork to advocate for increased attention and unity of purpose among stakeholders in order to serve well as an example to other countries. These types of focusing 167 events can be anticipated by ECNetwork because of its competence in networking, building interpersonal relationships, and brokering. Because ECNetwork has a relationship with the African ECED Network, it was invited to the East Africa ECED meeting in Nairobi where the NCF was introduced regionally. This allowed it to begin gathering information from its members about relevant work in TZ, discuss with partners their interest in particular network actions, and begin planning with government and stakeholders how it might prepare for upcoming events in Tanzania. These focusing events are more likely to have an impact on a policy agenda if the problem they highlight had already been on the radar. For ECED issues in Tanzania, the NCF was not the first time that ECED had been highlighted as an area that needed to be addressed. Because of internationally published indicators, the Millennium Development Goals, and the nation being home to a large number of national and international NGOs, the Tanzanian government is well aware of the problems facing ECED around the country. Feedback. ECNetwork’s connections with implementing partners and the network members provides opportunities for many different types of feedback. According to Kingdon (2011), feedback is usually provided to government as they “monitor expenditures, have experience with administering programs, evaluate and oversee implementation, and receive complaints” (pg. 100). However, in the context of Tanzania, the national level government deals more with the creation of policy, budgets, and procedures; it is the lower level of government, based in regions and districts, that tend to receive and make decisions based on feedback. There are challenges for the national government when it comes to feedback from the ground level implementation, 168 We don’t have an electronic system of, you know, reporting information from field. So, this paper works and all this bring a lot of challenges and you know. So, we normally miss a lot of information there because we don’t have some sort of scattered means of develop channel information or website, all these kind of, where we can you know, we can use to get information… (Emmanuel, interview 1) This ministry official expresses the difficulty of getting information back from the ground that they can use to make policy decisions. The ability of ECNetwork to engage members from the ground provides an alternative pathway, as opposed to going through lower government bodies, and allows them to give feedback and advocate on issues directly related to current national level government concerns and agenda items. When the national government added preprimary education to their agenda and needed cost information for refurbishing classrooms, ECNetwork could have reached out to members doing that work and gather budgets and examples from across the country. ECNetwork’s coordination with members and partners at all levels provides strengthened advocacy because of the information and detail messaging incorporates. Politics, Politics. Politics are a big part of the entire policy-making process, but in agenda setting they have significant implications for the work of ECNetwork. Because of the importance of relationship building and networking on the ability of ECNetwork to be effective in communicating between the government and its network members, changes in administration and position have a real impact on continuity. When a new administration comes into office, and periodically throughout the year, people in ministry positions are shifted or let go and new people take their place. This is a problem for ECNetwork when it had been building a relationship and trust with individuals in the government. I learned about the frequency and types 169 of changes that had been occurring in the national government during my observations and interviews. ECNetwork officials in particular discussed the difficulties they encountered when there were changes in management. Keeping an issue on the national agenda can be just as difficult as getting it there in the first place. Several participants in my interviews discussed the inevitable changes that happen in the make-up of the government. But as Edwin from ECNetwork explains, it is their job to make sure that new people are always brought up to date and engaged, lest ECED disappear from the national agenda: You work with people this year, tomorrow you find new people. The team we just joined, we just, new people, new person, I have never worked with him before. They just came in…that part which were there, are all gone. So you can find that kind of thing. So ECD is always new to people because…so that is one of the jobs, that ECNetwork has to make sure that ECD is a national agenda. (Edwin, interview 1) In Tanzania these changes are not isolated to personnel. It was also surprising to me that none of the documentation I was able to access prior to arriving in Tanzania about the organization of ministries was current. Reconfiguration of ministries and departments is more of a regular occurrence than visible from online resources. These recent changes were described by an interviewee: “So, before we had the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, which had community development. Now, the Ministry of Health has been revised, so, the Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children” (Amina, interview 1). Changes such as this at the ministerial level have implications for advocacy in terms of how ECNetwork advocates given new political dynamics. 170 For example, the structure, even at the [MoHCDGEC], the structure itself, we never got it finalized—because you go to this department they would tell it’s like this, you go to this it’s like this. We thought we would go to the permanent secretary then he would have an overall picture. But even him, he could not pinpoint, you see. So, ok, for some issues it’s these guys, for some issues it’s these guys. So, it’s…we just learn as we go. (Neema, interview 1) When full ministries become subsumed by others and they become departments within a larger ministry, who has responsibility over particular issues? ECNetwork has to navigate these political and bureaucratic terrains carefully and has to make sure their advocacy is heard by all involved, regardless of the hierarchy. For example, when the Ministry of Community Development was a separate from the Ministry of Health, Community Development coordinated dialogues in which the Health was involved: The original coordinating of Community Development then being subsumed within a sort of sector ministry which it used to be coordinating, and this Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elderly, and Children just suddenly meant that there wasn’t really…there just wasn’t the appropriate hierarchy for being able to coordinate multi-sectoral dialogue, interventions, responsibilities, and so all of this happened at the same time and just left… (Henry, interview 1) When the Ministry of Community Development was subsumed, confusion about who was in charge of what wasn’t cleared up. New hierarchies weren’t made clear, and as a result, those who used to lead multi-sectoral ECED dialogues no longer knew if that responsibility was theirs. Visible Participants. Kingdon (2011) categorizes visible participants who impact the agenda setting process as those, “who receive considerable press and public attention, include the 171 president and his high-level appointees, prominent members of Congress [(Parliament)], the media, and such elections-related actors as political parties and campaigners” (pg. 199). Because of ECNetwork’s focus on national policy advocacy work, these visible participants in the policy- making process are important as a focus. Because of ECNetwork’s access to these visible participants are higher than that of most of their network members and partners, their ability to engage them is higher. Engaging and building relationships with these visible participants, particularly high-level government officials, is where competence in trust building, diplomacy and political skills, and managing multiple accountabilities are utilized. These competencies, although under different roles, all require that ECNetwork personnel understand the avenues they have to impact the agenda through different individuals, the process to accessing them and different venues which may put them in contact, as well as understanding what they as an actor outside of government can provide or offer as incentive to build or strengthen a relationship. Because of long-standing relationships with some high-level government officials and a positive record of working with government, the head of ECNetwork already has a base-level of trust. This reputation, along with continued positive opportunities to work together allows ECNetwork access to officials which may not be as easily accessible to other staff of ECNetwork head office. The lead official of ECNetwork conveyed the ease with which he can contact certain high-level government officials, he told me during morning phone calls to confirm attendees for a meeting later in the week, “we are in each-others’ phones.” Where most calls to ministry official’s private phones from un-named numbers wouldn’t be answered, the ease with which ECNetwork is able to reach government officials by phone results in increased communication and connection between the two. Through these relationships and continued work together, all of the staff of ECNetwork gain increased trust and learn the political dynamics of working with the 172 national government, as Emmanuel from the lead ministry for ECED states, “we have built a lot of trust with ECNetwork, ever since they started this process. So, the ministry’s trusting them…” Managing multiple accountabilities is a key competence that must be at the front of ECNetwork’s mind when working with government. Although in their policy-advocacy work they find themselves in the government settings more often than in the field with their members, they still are representing those members and are primarily working with government on their behalf. Throughout the process of advocating, ECNetwork keeps members informed about strategic efforts and progress, calls for help from partners when needed, and makes sure that many voices have the opportunity to be heard. Related to the idea of visible participants is the concept of hidden participants. Kingdon (2011) explains that it is the hidden participants who generate proposals, alternatives, and solutions for problems that make it on the agenda; they are a “community of specialists” (pg. 200), which describes well the partners and members of ECNetwork. The Tanzanian government expressed a desire and need for more information from these hidden participants, in particular the specialists which can provide them with research on ground level issues and proposals for solving these problems. In an interview with a ministry official he expressed, We have limited research and studies that will inform us the challenges on the ground. So, we have a few researchers, few studies, and we would like probably whoever you feel that can do research studies on the ground that will inform us what is happening on the ground, and the gaps and all this, we would appreciate. (Emmanuel, interview 1) Building connections between visible participants and hidden participants such as academics, ECED specialists working in national and international NGOs, and consultants, ECNetwork 173 facilitates a highly qualified and knowledgeable community to help inform and propose solutions for government agenda items. During an initial interview with Edwin from ECNetwork, he explained how they have made sure to connect with experts outside of their membership, “we have been working with these people, these academic institutions. Even now, with the [planning team], there is representation from these academic institutions. So, we make sure we don’t lose them…they are experts” (Edwin, interview 1). He went on to explain that it is crucial to engage these academic and research focused stakeholders because when they do their advocacy to the government and highlight something that is ‘important,’ the government will want evidence to back up that claim. ECED specialists such as those found in academia in Tanzania are best placed to provide evidence or carry out research to determine what should be highlighted. Policy formation/Decision making – Securing favorable decisions. Not all of the actors involved in agenda setting, whether visible or hidden, continue their involvement in the next stage of the policy making process. According to Sidney (2006), “In general, we expect fewer participants to be involved in policy formulation than were involved in the agenda-setting process, and we expect more of the work to take place out of the public eye” (pg. 79). While this is may be true in many policy making processes, much of the literature referenced the processes studied have been located in the United States and other westernized countries. In Tanzania, because ECNetwork co-chairs with a Ministry official at many meetings concerning ECED, they become a visible representation of the non-governmental interests. While in this position, ECNetwork focuses their political skills and diplomacy towards both government officials and non-governmental organizations (both members and partner INGOs). These decision-making processes require ECNetwork to navigate and bring together these two 174 sets of actors in order to secure a mutually agreed upon favorable position. This takes time and is not accomplished quickly. One interview participant gave his understanding of this process: Of course, I can say, um, to change practices or to inform policy change is not expected to be an overnight thing, it should take a process. Especially where we have different actors. That’s why we are saying ECNetwork is important… because if you have the umbrella where you can dialogue and discuss things together than you can hear what’s happening in Mtwara where other implementers are doing other [unclear], so you put your idea together. But I can say, the challenge, there’s not that big challenge really, it’s a matter of…things are taking shape slowly. (Samuel, interview 1) This is a long process and there are many factors which need to be considered on both sides when engaging in discussions: timelines, budgets, approval processes, capacity, and political will. Because ECNetwork is knowledgeable about the decision-making contexts of both government and non-state actors, they have the opportunity to facilitate decisions that factor in the needs and desires of both groups. Continued communication between ECNetwork and their members allows discussions about policy decisions to incorporate context into discussions and highlight options for programs to incorporate into new policies seeking to solve ECED issues. ECNetwork members and partners have a wealth of implementation experience and can provide research and recommendations from programs currently in practice in Tanzania. This context is particularly important as it had been noted during the national ECED forum that there is still a need to coordinate ECED implementation interventions which will help to avoid duplication, reduce financial expense, increase transparency, and ensure that more areas of the country are reached 175 (National ECED forum summary document, 2018). Through knowledge provided by ECNetwork about current interventions by members and partners, policy decisions can be informed by results, not theory. Implementation – Ensuring decisions are implemented & Evaluation – Making sure that these activities create favorable social outcomes. Although there are no examples of advocacy done by ECNetwork related to the current ECED National Plan of Action, there is the potential for them to use advocacy in these two areas. The ECNetwork Constitution states: The main aim of the Network is to create an environment that enables members of the Network and stakeholders to support young children at all levels of society and nationally to participate actively in educating, mobilizing, managing and advocating for the rights and access to integrated Early Childhood Care and Development for the life and development of young children in the country. (ECNetwork Constitution, 2014, pg.2) The continued coordination and communication with implementing members and partners will allow ECNetwork to continue to utilize indicators and feedback during the process of implementing the ECED National Action Plan, and continue to monitor how initiatives are reaching impact goals. Because ECNetwork was not intended to be a short-term actor, their roles and advocacy will continue to be an integral part of the ECED system that national government relies on to facilitate and strengthen partnerships with CSOs (NGOs, INGOs, etc.). Conclusion Through their position as mid-level coordinating actor, ECNetwork acts as the bridge between its CSO members and the national government. This connection provides them both the 176 national government’s attention and the information, evidence, and context that can only be provided by those implementing programs and directly involved with the children and families they serve. Through examination of policy documents, interviews, and observations, I found that ECNetwork was ideally positioned to advocate on ECED policy issues to national government officials. The advocacy activity of ECNetwork is an example of the unique opportunities that the position of mid-level coordinating actor—and the roles and competencies it requires—provides. More work should be done to investigate whether this unique position is shared with MLCAs in other ECED systems, if it is more likely in systems with high reliance on development organizations, or if it can be seen working in similar ways elsewhere in the world. 177 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS I feel like as we move forward we have been singing about coordination, coordination, coordination, coordination. But, you ask people, what do you mean by coordination? (Amina, interview 1). This has become the question at the heart of this study: what do you mean by coordination? We have this concept in our heads, we know it is about making connections between things, but to really understand its complexity we have to look deeper. It’s about more than making connections. My dissertation has examined ECNetwork during their work as MLCA, coordinating the Tanzanian ECED system by serving as a bridge between government and non-state ECED stakeholders. As I have illustrated in previous chapters, this work is neither simple nor straightforward. Rather, a MLCA’s job of coordination is accomplished through engaging in roles and competencies which utilize administrators’ capacity to connect, understand, navigate, and engage other system stakeholders. ECNetwork administrators took on the roles of reticulist, entrepreneur, interpreter, and organizer in order to bring stakeholders together, at an opportune time, and build common resolutions and strategies to positively impact the education and development of Tanzanian children. Because coordination has been highlighted in research on early childhood systems as a critical component, I wanted to understand what it entails and how we can build system structures and capacitate actors to support it. I applied Williams’ (2011) boundary spanner framework to add structure to my initial conceptualization of MLCAs drawn from the research 178 on boundary spanning entities (Berlinski & Schady, 2015; Kagan et al., 2015), and bridging organizations (Brown, 1991; Crona & Parker, 2012). The roles and competencies I detailed through analysis of interviews and observations aided in building a more complex understanding of what coordination is and how it is carried out by a MLCA in an ECED system. In this concluding chapter I summarize the previous chapters, discuss the main findings which expand our understanding of coordination by a MLCA, and connect my findings to relevant areas of literature noting implications for future research and policy. Review of Chapters This dissertation examined how ECNetwork acts as a MLCA, working to bring the disparate ministries, development agencies, implementers, academics, and citizens together to engage in synchronized effort. I posed two research questions to discover both how ECNetwork went about their work of coordination and what types of capacities they employed in that process. Because of the global relevance that this topic has, in the first chapter I described the research and events that have led to the current focus on systems thinking in ECED around the world, and my emphasis on mid-level coordination in particular. Chapter two highlighted the importance of context—cultural, political, and social—in the investigation into and analysis of the work of a MLCA. ECED systems around the world take different shapes. They are influenced by varied histories, numerous policies, and respond to culturally and socially diverse environments. Each of these factors influence the how a MLCA may work within an ECED system, their position, and the type of actors that can be considered to fill it. ECNetwork was given a mandate of coordination, and this was repeated and referred to all of my initial discussions with stakeholders and the focal organization. Chapter three details the methodology of my case study and how I engaged in different methods to gather data in to 179 address my research questions. Through this case study, I began to see coordination happening in many different ways during my observations of ECNetwork in their daily work and interactions with other ECED system actors. This work was intensive, it took commitment to engage continuously with both government and non-governmental ECED stakeholders. In chapter four, I analyzed these observations and interviews, along with organizational documents and national policies, in order to build a better understanding of the work an MLCA does. This analysis helped to expand the understanding of a MLCA’s work beyond the simple definition of ‘coordination’. Employing Williams’ (2011) framework I explored the roles of reticulist, entrepreneur, interpreter, and organizer. Within each of these roles, ECNetwork used different competencies to coordinate the Tanzanian ECED system in different ways, each important to its overall function and effectiveness. By developing insight into what each of these competencies helped ECNetwork to achieve, the dynamic nature of a MLCA’s position is more fully comprehended and appreciated. This in turn allows for identification of additional capacity that can be strengthened in current staff, or searched for in additional staff in the future. In chapter five I described how through advocacy, ECNetwork broadened its efforts from coordinating the ECED system to shaping and attempting to improve it from the policy level. ECNetwork capitalized on their position as a bridge between the national level government and non-state actors to channel advocacy messages from members to decision makers. While it may not be possible for all types of actors who fill the MLCA role—because of country level regulations—the position that ECNetwork held allowed them to be a vital resource for government in creating policies which were relevant and contextualized, and a valued conduit for the people who implement the programs and procedures dictated by the policies to have a voice. 180 These chapters detailed the multifaceted work necessary to coordinate ECED systems at the mid-level. ECNetwork as the MLCA used skills in networking, brokering, diplomacy, communication, framing and sensemaking, advocacy, and organizing to coordinate the people, programs, events, and policies of the Tanzanian ECED system. The relationships that they built were strengthened through their efforts to continue to build ECED system members’ trust and stay accountable to the variety of groups they bridge between. More Than…: Promoting a Complex View of Coordination Studies into coordination of ECED in efforts to support integration of policies and services have mainly focused on the governmental components of the system. This is a problem particularly in low- and middle-income countries where there is “significant (and in many regions growing) importance of non-state actors” (ECED Woodhead et al., 2014, pg. 104). In Tanzania, this expansive group of stakeholders includes community-based organizations, faith- based organizations, local, national, and international NGOs, UN global organizations, as well as the private sector. These non-state actors “play important roles in delivering services and require further coordination” (Berlinski & Schady, 2015, pg. 179) in addition to the government coordination that is needed. Tanzania’s utilization of ECNetwork as MLCA capitalizes on the coordination it was designed to do with ECED non-state actors as an umbrella organization. Their position as MLCA is solidified through increasing ECNetwork’s inclusion and connection to government through the mandate that they act as the bridge between state and non-state actors. This position however, means that they are working between two very different worlds and among groups which each have different governance structures, protocols, content knowledges, and priorities. 181 Coordination Capacity The aim of this research was to examine the case of ECNetwork and the complexity of the coordination task they had been given. This involved observing ECNetwork’s daily activities over the course of seven weeks and questioning through interviews why different actions were taken. During fieldwork and later analysis, it was clear that there were many different roles that ECNetwork was playing as MLCA, and numerous competencies that they were utilizing to perform these roles. Bringing this information together, with the addition of contextual details, allowed me to develop an initial conceptualization of an ECED MLCA and a more complex understanding of what the coordination they provide requires of them. I organized the types of coordination work into four categories of roles developed by Williams (2002, 2011). These roles and their areas of competency helped to add depth to the description of the types of connecting, spanning, and bridging that ECNetwork did. This aids in the conceptualization of MLCAs in ECED systems. Below each of these coordination roles and the main findings about each in the case of ECNetwork are revisited. Reticulist. Working to build and maintain a network of connections requires that an MLCA be versed in the ways different groups interact and conduct their business. This requires a great deal of political and diplomatic skill, particularly when interacting with government officials. ECNetwork navigated their work with government through a deep knowledge of the Tanzanian governance structures. The hierarchy within the national government causes challenges for those uninformed about the ‘chain of command’ in multi-sectoral issues. Frustration encountered in past experience taught ECNetwork administrators to follow the process for gathering multi-sectoral meetings through engaging the Prime Minister’s Office to call the various ministry representatives together. Knowledge that this individual formal call 182 might not mean a specific representative will attend—rather a lower level member would come in their place—ECNetwork administrators would contact specifically desired attendees directly. The ability of ECNetwork administrators to have a direct connection to ministry and other government officials was made possible through the intensive networking they did as an organization, as well as the prior network of connections each ECNetwork administrator brought with them from prior work. With non-state actors ECNetwork’s role as reticulist is complex and evolving. Because the group of stakeholders which make up non-state actors is so diverse and spread out across the country, networking and communicating are challenging just from a numbers perspective. MLCAs could approach this in many different ways, and ECNetwork has done it in a variety of ways in the past. However, during my research I observed ECNetwork connect with non-state actors on a daily basis through phone calls, hosting professional development workshops, and traveling to stakeholder meetings and project update meetings across the country. Depending on the country context a MLCA works in, this type of networking mean that budgeting for travel becomes an operational burden. More novel platforms for networking may be necessary if finances or travel are limiting factors. Careful consideration should be given the social and cultural factors that impact the ways people are connected and how this might impact the work a MLCA must do. In Tanzania this meant that you were more likely to use phone calls than an email, in-person meetings were preferred whenever possible, and tea and meal times were important occasions during meetings for building network connections. Working as the bridge between state and non-state ECED stakeholders raises questions about who ECNetwork and MLCA’s are accountable to. This is a precarious position, 183 particularly for ECNetwork, which is primarily a network of national non-state actors. Balancing the multiple accountabilities that are added through their work with government and international and UN global organizations complicates these matters. ECNetwork and other MCLAs should carefully consider the effect that their lack of neutrality has on their ability to do their work and be accountable to the different stakeholders they bridge and connect. Entrepreneur. The role of entrepreneur is predicated on the ability of the MLCA to use their network of connections to have a ‘finger on the pulse’ of different group’s priorities. For ECNetwork this meant monitoring the trends in the international ECED space to forecast the types of initiatives which may begin to be developed by national government and NGOs and what opportunities for funding might be available to their members. They maintained conversations with government contacts and kept apprised of policy developments. Periodic updates from member organizations and meetings with partner organizations kept them current on implementation activity. By staying up to date with all of these factors, ECNetwork was able to recognize when priorities between groups matched and an opportunity to address common goals was ideal. These ‘windows of opportunity’ (Kingdon, 2011; Lipsky, 2010) are the signal to MLCAs that they need to begin coupling the problems one group is trying to address with the solutions that another group has been developing and utilizing in the field. This is one of the benefits MLCAs can capitalize on when there are different groups implementing programs across the country. NGOs and INGOs implementing programs and services include monitoring systems and research components in much of their work. They have a wealth of experience in research-backed, contextualized program development and implementation. By including them in the network of coordinated actors in an ECED system, that knowledge and experience is available to improve the quality and access to services across 184 the country. The limiting factors of addressing ECED issues can be narrowed to acquiring resources (financial and material) when the system has access to national and international knowledge, experience, and research. Interpreter. I found the importance of relationships to the coordination of the Tanzanian ECED system to be paramount. For an MLCA building relationships with ECED system stakeholders allows them to learn about the ways each actor views problems that need to be addressed, the language they use to describe the work they are involved in, their understanding of ECED issues, and their intentions and ambitions for the future. The understanding that ECNetwork gained through relationships with diverse stakeholders alerted them to the inconsistencies that were present in term-use and definition, as well as the lack of government approved system supports such as guidelines which would clear up some of these inconsistencies. Coordination of multi-sectoral systems relies not only on connections between actors, but on their access to a common ‘language’ to use when discussing issues across groups. MLCAs can aid in the development of a common frame of reference, whether this is through support of discussions to standardize formal government endorsed guidelines and policies or through informal agreements between stakeholders during national meetings held by MLCAs. Building and managing these relationships can be fostered or hindered by issues of trust. ECNetwork has dealt in the past with the problems that broken trust can cause for their ability to engage in dialogue and support the ECED system. Building trust is far easier that re-gaining it after it has been broken. To build trust in the new ECNetwork administration, a third-party conducted an institutional review which reached out to member organizations to understand their expectations of ECNetwork. At the end of my data collection ECNetwork was near the 185 completion of this review, but it was clear that this physical document was only the beginning of the work that they were doing and will have to continue to do to rebuild trust in the network. Organizer. Meeting and event coordination is a small yet highly visible piece of the work of MLCAs. This role draws on the work that is accomplished through the other roles and competencies in order to plan and execute events. While tedious and time consuming, planning, coordinating, and convening groups of diverse ECED stakeholders—and having them all show up—is the first tangible success that I witnessed and heard ECNetwork celebrate during my fieldwork. Living through part of the process it took to accomplish this, I felt the relief when first introductions were made at a meeting and representatives from every group invited were present. The manpower that is needed for some roles and competencies of a MLCA is higher than others. Compared to other roles and competencies, the role of organizer relies more heavily on multiple administrators working together. This has real implications for the number of individuals that should make up a MLCA. During my data collection, the small size of ECNetwork meant that a partner organization, HfC, had to take time away from their other programmatic duties to assist the ECNetwork administrators. While this was a necessary burden at the time, in the future ECNetwork will need to evaluate its staff numbers and consider how these times of increased need for manpower can be accommodated. Advocate. The accumulated competencies that ECNetwork developed to act as the MLCA of the Tanzanian ECED system, positioned them well to engage in policy advocacy at the national level. ECNetwork capitalized on the skills and connections gained in the role of reticulist to call together network stakeholders, gather information and aid in the development of a unified message, and communicate that message to government on behalf of the whole. The working relationships that ECNetwork administrators developed with government officials 186 meant that pathways for communication had been established and access was more possible. The network of non-state actors which make up the membership of ECNetwork in addition to the partnerships with INGOs and UN organizations allowed a wealth of knowledge, experience, and research to be available for strengthening the advocacy messages from these groups that ECNetwork transmitted. The unified front that ECNetwork provides for the collective voice of ECED non-state stakeholders lessens the ‘noise’ that government officials have to filter. ECNetwork act as an initial filter at the mid-level so that issues non-state actors want addressed are discussed, weighed, and consolidated so as not to overwhelm the government. Unified advocacy by one on behalf of the many both strengthens the argument and makes that argument easier to hear. While MLCAs in all systems may not have the same opportunities to engage in advocacy, their focus on coordination may provide unique opportunities to simplify the gathering and filtering of information needed to gain the government’s attention and provide them with contextualized and proven solutions. Like my identification of advocacy as an important role that ECNetwork performs in its coordination work, there are likely others that will be identified through further investigation. Williams’ framework wasn’t created thinking about the added complexity coordination in an international development space has. Specific issues that arise when trying work in response to both national and international contexts weren’t present for Williams to identify while studying coordination within a national context. Moving forward, we should look into competencies associated with navigating the multiple languages, vocabularies, and problem framings that vary in these global contexts and between actors who work in them. Particularly in Tanzania and other low-income countries where development aid and capacity are often necessary for governments 187 to implement programs and services, understanding how MLCAs are able to coordinate across diversely located groups will help to better define and outline how their work is facilitated. Implications for Research and Policy The finding from this dissertation have implications for several areas of research and additional implications for ECED policy. Insights into alternative non-policy induced mechanisms for coordination of ECED systems, nonprofit advocacy practices, and conceptualization of mid-level coordination are detailed below. Mechanisms for Coordination of ECED systems Much of the focus of coordinating ECED systems has focused on policy-induced structures and coordination of government institutions. There is a need to understand alternative ways that ECED systems can be coordinated in order to aid countries who don’t have the government capacity or resources to implement a policy-induced mechanism or who have failed to pass such a policy. Especially in low- and middle-income countries, the good intentions of an integrated early childhood policy (IECP) can be dashed when the resources and energy that are put into its creation deplete those needed for implementation. For Tanzania, ECED has been set back by this failed policy development process before and there is a general attitude that a new policy isn’t the place to start. Rose, a non-state actor, described how she is hoping this new process into coordinating the ECED system will work: I wouldn’t really rush into having, like, a policy…and for me I would actually look at how do we start from the district level or ward level going up and that informs…how can [programs and services] be piloted and actually look at how to scale them, other than just coming up with a document and then we go and then you realized actually that it’s not, it’s not working…So, definitely we need those 188 areas which is a challenge like coordination, policy, standards; they need to be in place, but I would try to do it different…doing kind of pilot first, so have kind of different designs of approaches, pilot them and see which one actually is working for us to inform it to development of whatever document we want. (Rose, interview 1) This approach is exemplified in the case study of ECNetwork. Through the MLCA the multitude of approaches, pilots, and programs are being capitalized on to first determine what is working to address the ECED issues and priorities specific to Tanzania. Then, as detailed through my data collection, the work of coordinating stakeholders to unify their purpose, synchronize efforts, eliminate duplication of effort and resource waste, and scale up programs in order to improve the quality and access to ECED service across the country. By flipping the traditional process of ‘policy creation first’ on its head, the initial knowledge and resource burden can be lessened by spreading it across a wider group of stakeholders who are likely already trying to impact the individual issues a policy would be meant to address. Additional research is needed in low-and middle-income countries to determine if this type of alternative pathway is being used, or if stepped approaches to the roll out of an IECP have been utilized such as the case of South Africa’s ‘South African National Integrated Early Childhood Development Policy’ (Desmond et al., 2019). More research detailing the planning and implementation of plans and policies to integrate and coordinate different country’s ECED systems would provide more options and concrete examples to aid others trying to do the same. Nonprofit Advocacy Research into the practice of advocacy by nonprofit organizations has focused on organizations where advocacy is their core activity. This dissertation provides insight into 189 practices and “practical strategies for facilitating advocacy efforts in organizations that conduct advocacy as a secondary rather than core organizational activity” (Kimberlin, 2010, pg. 179). The strategy of “advocacy with gloves on” (Onyx et al., 2010) aids in the understanding that organizations whose first objective is not advocacy may not participate in advocacy strategies or tactics which might negatively impact their ability to conduct their core activity, particularly when that primary mission is also achieved through interaction with the government. For this reason, understanding whether it is prudent for a MLCA to engage in advocacy should be carefully considered. More research should be done to discover if and how advocacy is carried out by other MLCAs in ECED systems. Uncovering the ways in which MLCAs engage in advocacy in relation to their position in an ECED system can help us to understand the ways in which these actors are supported or hindered in their abilities to extend coordination efforts into the areas of policy influence. Analysis of formal and informal policies at the national and local levels should be done to determine if engagement in advocacy by MLCAs is impacted by internal or external limiting factors. This combined with an analysis of the cultural, social, and political contexts can offer insight into why different non-core advocacy nonprofits such as MLCAs may or may not engage in advocacy. From this a framework for understanding the factors which facilitate or inhibit MLCA policy advocacy can be built and useful strategies and tactics appropriate for the unique position of ECED MLCAs can be created. Conceptualizations of Mid-Level Coordination In this dissertation I have discussed the wide recognition that coordination is vital to the development of integrated early childhood systems (Berlinski & Schady, 2015; Pia Rebello Britto et al., 2013; Bruner, 2012; Kaga et al., 2010; Kagan & Roth, 2017; Vargas-Barón, 2013; 190 Hirokazu Yoshikawa et al., 2018). The necessary connections across the sectors of health, nutrition, education, and social protection as well as across national-, mid-, and local-levels make the coordination of ECED systems challenging. In their 2015 publication, Berlinski and Schady acknowledge this recognition as an important first step, and expressed hope that “as more countries move in this direction, the number of inventive solutions to the problems faced by all should increase” (Berlinski & Schady, 2015, pg. 187). This dissertation begins to address the desire for innovative solutions through a study of ECNetwork. I develop an initial understanding of this MLCA’s approach to ECED system coordination in Tanzania, but I also take it one step further by investigating what capacities the work of coordination entails for the network organization tasked with this mandate. Through the case study of coordination by ECNetwork, a MLCA, I examined an example of how one low-income SSA country is working to improve the integration and coordination of their ECED system. I have proposed a framework for understanding the complex set of roles and competencies that the work of coordination requires an MLCA to take up. This conceptualization of MLCA’s work calls for new attention to be given to the capacities and resources MLCAs require if they are to increase coordination at the mid-level that ECED systems around the world are lacking (Britto et al., 2014; Yoshikawa et al., 2018). Coordination is a complex process in ECED systems because of the diverse actors, multi- sectoral institutions, and plethora of policies that define it. More research into how coordination is carried out through the use of the framework I used in this dissertation will provide opportunities for it to be refined through its application to a wider variety of ECED system contexts. As it is utilized to understand MLCA’s work around the world, the ways in which different MLCA actor types are able to perform these roles and competencies will be gained. 191 Because prior conceptualizations of MLCAs have them positioned as a government actor (Berlinski & Schady, 2015; Kagan et al., 2015) further studies should focus on MLCAs that fall outside of this category. My dissertation looks specifically at a national ECED network organization, but other types of actors may also be well positioned to perform the needed mid- level coordination in ECED systems. All of the aspects of coordination are critical to ECED system function. Further exploration into a diverse array of MLCAs working in ECED systems around the world is needed to provide a dynamic understanding of how their coordination work forms networks and relationships, develops lines of communication, creates common understanding, influences policies and programs, and integrates efforts of all ECED system stakeholders towards improved outcomes for their country’s youngest citizens. 192 APPENDICES 193 APPENDIX A: Interview Consent Form MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Research Participant Information and Consent Form Individual Interview We are asking you to participate in our research study. We, as researchers, are required to provide information about the research study, explain that your participation is voluntary, and secure your consent if you wish to move forward as a participant. If at any time you have questions, please feel free to ask. Contact information for all researchers as well as the supervising advisor are provided at the beginning and end of this document. More than Making Connections: A Mid-level Coordinating Actor's Role within the Tanzanian Early Childhood System Researcher: Jessica Landgraf Supervising Advisor: Dr. Lynn Paine Address and Contact Information: Dr. Lynn Paine 620 Farm Lane East Lansing MI 48824 email: painel@msu.edu Jessica Landgraf: landgr16@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH With this research we are interested in understanding the ways in which ECNetwork interacts with other organizations and the government to plan, coordinate, and implement early childhood education policy, programs, and initiatives. We are asking you to participate because, as a person involved in early childhood development in Tanzania, you can provide insight into that process. 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO You will be asked to complete 1 tape-recorded interview (~30 - 60 minutes). The interview will occur at a time and place of your choosing. In the interview I will ask about your role in early childhood development in Tanzania and the projects that you are involved in with ECNetwork. 3. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY Your privacy and confidentiality will be protected throughout the study. In order to do this, interviews and focus group recordings (along with any other data) will be kept on password- protected computers only accessible to research team members. Data may also be made available to the Institutional Review Board at Michigan State University, upon their request. Transcribed interviews will substitute a pseudonym for your real name as well as changing the names of relevant places and institutions that would reveal your identity. Subsequent publications and presentations at professional meetings resulting from this study will only reference your pseudonym. If you participate, we would like to be able to quote you 194 directly, without using your name, in publications and presentations. If you agree to this please initial the statement at the bottom of this form. 4. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. • You may choose not to answer specific questions. • You may withdraw from the study or stop participating at any time. 5. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. 6. CONTACT INFORMATION If you have concerns or questions about this study, please contact the researcher: Address and Contact Information: Dr. Lynn Paine 620 Farm Lane East Lansing MI 48824 email: painel@msu.edu Jessica Landgraf: landgr16@msu.edu If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 7. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. ________________________________________ Signature You will be given a copy of this form to keep. _____________________________ Date § I agree to be quoted directly in reports and presentations, using a pseudonym. Yes Yes § No Initials____________ I agree to allow audiotaping* of the interview. No Initials____________ 195 APPENDIX B: Interview Protocols Interview Protocol for ECNetwork and HfC 1. First, tell me about yourself. What is your job title at __________? a. How long have you worked for ___________? b. What is your background in early childhood? 2. How would you describe [ECNetwork’s] purpose or goal for ECED in Tanzania? What are they trying to achieve? 3. If that is the end goal, can you draw a timeline of the events/programs/meetings that have happened and will happen in the future, working towards that goal? Work backwards if that helps. a. How did ECNetwork first become involved in ECED in Tanzania? What led to their involvement in discussions/action with other ECED stakeholders? b. What part did ECNetwork play in that event/program/meeting? c. Who were the stakeholders involved in that? d. What do/did each of these stakeholders do? e. How do you, your organization, interact with them? f. Are other projects or programs involved in fulfilling this plan? Where do they fit in the timeline? 4. What challenges or barriers did you face along the way? a. Did you overcome them? b. If so how? If not, how did you adjust? c. How did it impact your path forward? 5. I know that HfC has been designated to “lead support for an institutional reform process and strategic repositioning of the national ECD network ECNetwork.” How did HfC and ECNetwork become so closely involved? 6. What do you see as each organization’s (ECNetwork’s/HfC’s) role in this process? 7. Ideally what is ECNetwork’s position in ECED in Tanzania? How is this different from the past and/or current position? 8. Card sorting activity: “Thinking about roles, thinking about who is involved with what, and the different ways that they interact with each other: organize these cards into some sort of visual representation of the ECED system in Tanzania… a. Who are the main stakeholders involved in Tanzanian ECED policy and b. What do each of these stakeholders do? And how do they interact with each programs? other? 196 How does information flow through the system? c. d. Have you worked with any of these stakeholders? How were you brought together and for what purpose? e. Has this layout changed over time? f. Are there changes that you would like to see in the future? g. Are there any stakeholders missing that I should add to the cards? h. Etc. based on interviewee’s comments Interview Protocol for ECED Stakeholders 1. First, tell me about yourself and your organization? a. Name b. Position c. Years working for organization 2. What is your background in early childhood? OR How did you become involved in ECED in Tanzania? 3. How would you describe your goal for ECED in Tanzania? What are you trying to 4. Tell me about ECED in Tanzania? This can be general and also from your organization’s achieve/accomplish? point of view. programs? other? 5. Card sorting activity: “Thinking about roles, thinking about who is involved with what, and the different ways that they interact with each other: organize these cards into some sort of visual representation of the ECED system in Tanzania… a. Who are the main stakeholders involved in Tanzanian ECED policy and b. What do each of these stakeholders do? And how do they interact with each c. How does information flow through the system? d. Have you worked with any of these stakeholders? How were you brought together and for what purpose? e. Has this layout changed over time? f. Are there changes that you would like to see in the future? g. Are there any stakeholders missing that I should add to the cards? h. Etc. based on interviewee’s comments 197 APPENDIX C: Observation Protocol Date: Stakeholders: Location: Activity: Interactions type: Connectors – develop and sustain relationships, network building, connecting with other and bringing those others together. Entrepreneurs – Development of new ideas to tackle complex problems, looking for opportunity to act. Interpreters/Communicators – connecting others to information, processing information for transmittal, communication translate info to different stakeholders. Organizers – housekeeping, planning, monitoring, knowledge management. 198 APPENDIX D: Observation Table Week # Days Location Reason 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 7 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 1 5 ECNetwork Office Work Day ECNetwork Office Work Day ECNetwork Office Work Day ECNetwork Office Planning Meeting Meeting of UNICEF funded UNICEF Office partners working on ECED ECNetwork Office Work day, HfC presentation to potential funder Hotel Conference Hall Research Presentation and Working Group ECNetwork Office Work Day ECNetwork Office Planning Meeting ECNetwork Office Planning Meeting Follow- up ECNetwork Office Work Day Conference Center National ECED Planning Team Meeting Conference Center ECED training for media ECNetwork Office Work Day Attendees ECNetwork ECNetwork ECNetwork, HfC ECNetwork, HfC ECNetwork, UNICEF, INGO Partners ECNetwork, HfC, visiting funder ECNetwork, HfC, Government, INGOs, NGOs, potential funders ECNetwork, HfC, Tanzanian ECED Professors ECNetwork, HfC, Government, INGOs, NGOs ECNetwork, Government Officials ECNetwork, HfC ECNetwork, Government, INGOs, NGOs HfC, National media representatives ECNetwork Table 5: Field Research Observations 199 REFERENCES 200 REFERENCES Alexander, E. R. (1993). Interorganizational coordination: Theory and practice. Journal of Planning Literature, 7(4), 328–343. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/088541229300700403 Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2014). Advocacy ctivities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013483212 Anderson-Levitt, K. M. (2012). Complicating the concept of culture. Comparative Education, 48(4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.2011.634285 Andrews, K. T., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the U.S. political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110542 Antonelli, R., McAllister, J., & Popp, J. (2009). Making care coordination a critical component of the pediatric health system: A multidisciplinary framework. Retrieved from http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/files/publications/fund- report/2009/may/making-care-coordination-a-critical- component/1277_antonelli_making_care_coordination_critical_final.pdf Appleton, P. L., Böll, V., Everett, J. M., Kelly, A. M., Meredith, K. H., & Payne, T. G. (1997). Beyond child development centres: Care coordination for children with disabilities. Child: Care, Health and Development. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2214.1997.839839.x Arensman, B., van Wessel, M., & Hilhorst, D. (2017). Does local ownership bring about effectiveness? The case of a transnational advocacy network. Third World Quarterly, 38(6), 1310–1326. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2016.1257908 Armstrong, M. (2006). Handbook of human resource management practice (10th ed.). London: Kogan Page. Avelar, M., & Ball, S. J. (n.d.). Mapping new philanthropy and the heterarchical state: The mobilization for the national learning standards in Brazil. International Journal of Educational Development, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.09.007 Ball, S. J. (2010). Global education, heterarchies, and hybrid organizations. In K.-H. Mok (Ed.), The search for new governance of higher education in asia (pp. 13–27). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Ball, S. J. (2016). Following policy: networks, network ethnography and education policy mobilities. Journal of Education Policy, 31(5), 549–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1122232 201 Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2014). Transversing the vertical case study: a methodological approach to studies of educational policy as practice. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 45(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12055 Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Taylor & Francis. Batley, R., & Mcloughlin, C. (2010). Engagement with non-state service providers in fragile states: Reconciling state-building and service delivery. Development Policy Review, 28(2), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00478.x Baudelot, O., Rayna, S., Mayer, S., & Musatti, T. (2003). A comparative analysis of the function of coordination of early childhood education and care in France and Italy. International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(2), 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760304701 Berlinski, S., & Schady, N. (2015). The early years: child well-being and the role of public policy. (S. Berlinski & N. Schady, Eds.). Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9781137536495.pdf Bernard, H. R. (2018). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Berthod, O., Grothe-Hammer, M., & Sydow, J. (2017). Network ethnography: A mixed-method approach for the study of practices in interorganizational settings. Organizational Research Methods, 20(2), 299–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428116633872 Bertram, T., Pascal, C., Cummins, A., Delaney, S., Ludlow, C., Lyndon, H., … Stancel-Piatak, A. (2016). Early childhood policies and systems in eight countries: findings from IEA’s early childhood education study. Retrieved from http://www.iea.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Electronic_versions/ECES- policies_and_systems-report.pdf Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as theory, practice, and dilemma. In The Sage handbook of governance (pp. 1–16). London: SAGE Publications. Black, M. M., Walker, S. P., Fernald, L. C. H., Andersen, C. T., Digirolamo, A. M., Lu, C., … Grantham-Mcgregor, S. (2017). Advancing early childhood development: from science to scale 1. The Lancet, 389, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7 Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2002). Qualitative Research for Education, An Introduction to Theory and Methods (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. Bratton, M. (1989). The politics of government-NGO relations in Africa. World Development, 17(4), 569–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(89)90263-5 202 Britto, Pia Rebello, Yoshikawa, H., & Boller, K. (2011). Quality of early childhood development programs in global contexts: Rationale for investment, conceptual framework and implications for equity and commentaries. Social Policy Report, 25(2), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2011.tb00067.x Britto, Pia Rebello, Yoshikawa, H., van Ravens, J., Ponguta, L. A., Reyes, M., Oh, S., … Seder, R. (2014). Strengthening systems for integrated early childhood development services: A cross-national analysis of governance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1308(1), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12365 Britto, Pia R., Lye, S. J., Proulx, K., Yousafzai, A. K., Matthews, S. G., Vaivada, T., … Bhutta, Z. A. (2017). Nurturing care: promoting early childhood development. The Lancet, 389(10064), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31390-3 Britto, Pia Rebello, Yoshikawa, H., Ravens, J. Van, Ponguta, L. A., Oh, S. S., Dimaya, R., & Seder, R. C. (2013). Understanding governance of early childhood development and education systems and services in low-income countries. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2013_7.pdf Brown, D. L. (1991). Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations, 44(8), 807–831. Bruner, C. (2012). A systems approach to young children’s healthy development and readiness for school. In Early childhood systems: Transforming early learning (pp. 35–40). Bruner, C., Stover-Wright, M., Gebhard, B., & Hibbard, S. (2004). Building an early learning system: the ABCs of planning and governance structures. Retrieved from http://www.buildinitiative.org/portals/0/uploads/documents/resource- center/build_earlylearningsystem_1.pdf Crona, B. I., & Parker, J. N. (2012). Learning in support of governance: Theories, methods, and a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource governance. Ecology and Society, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04534-170132 Cullerton, K., Donnet, T., Lee, A., & Gallegos, D. (2018). Effective advocacy strategies for influencing government nutrition policy: A conceptual model. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 15(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966- 018-0716-y Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Strategies of qualitative inquiry (Vol. 2). SAGE Publications. Denzin, Norman K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. (Norman K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, Eds.) (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. 203 Desmond, C., Viviers, A., Edwards, T., Rich, K., Martin, P., & Richter, L. (2019). Priority- setting in the roll out of South Africa’s National Integrated ECD Policy. Early Years, 39(3), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1572074 Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (2005). On the case: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Education Forum. (2000). The Dakar framework for action. Unesco, (April), 26–28. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001211/121147e.pdf Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Eze Akani, C. (2016). Globalization and non-governmental organizations in Africa (NGOs). problems and prospects. Global Journal of Human-Social Science (F) Political Science, 16(2). Ferguson, J. (2005). Seeing like an oil company: Space, security, and global capital in neoliberal Africa. American Anthropologist, 107(3), 377–382. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2005.107.3.377 Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38–52. Grønbjerg, K., & Prakash, A. (2017). Advances in research on nonprofit advocacy and civic engagement. Voluntas, 28(3), 877–887. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9712-5 Haas, S., Swan, B. A., & Haynes, T. (2013). Perspectives in Ambulatory Care. Nursing Economics, 31(1), 44–49. Haddad, L. (2002). An integrated approach to early childhood education and care. Early childhood and family policy series. Paris, France. Hamadani, J. D., Nahar, B., Huda, S. N., & Tofail, F. (2014). Integrating early child development programs into health and nutrition services in Bangladesh: Benefits and challenges. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1308(1), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12366 Harbin, G. L., Bruder, M. B., Adams, C., Mazzarella, C., Whitbread, K., Gabbard, G., & Staff, I. (2004). Early intervention service coordination policies: National policy infrastructure. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 24(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214040240020401 Heath, S., Fuller, A., & Johnston, B. (2009). Chasing shadows: Defining network boundaries in qualitative social network analysis. Qualitative Research, 9(5), 645–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794109343631 204 Hobe, S. (1997). Studies global challenges to statehood: The increasingly important role of nongovernmental organizations. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 5(1). Hogan, A. (2016). Network ethnography and the cyberflaneur: evolving policy sociology in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(3), 381–398. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/doi/pdf/10.1080/09518398.2015.1053159?n eedAccess=true Hwang, H., & Suarez, D. (2019). Beyond service provision: Advocacy and the construction of nonprofits as organizational actors. In H. Hwang, J. A. Colyvas, & G. S. Drori (Eds.), Agents, actors, actorhood: Institutional perspectives on the nature of agency, action, and authority (pp. 87–109). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.037 Jarzabkowski, P. A., Lê, J. K., & Feldman, M. S. (2012). Toward a theory of coordinating: Creating coordinating mechanisms in practice. Organization Science, 23(4), 907–927. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0693 Jenkins, J. C. (1987). Nonprofit organizations and policy advocacy. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinburg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (pp. 296–320). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Jenkins, J. C. (2006). Nonprofit organizations and political advocacy. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook (2nd ed., pp. 307–332). New Haven & London: Yale University Press. Kaga, Y., Barnett, S., & Bennett, J. (2012). Integration and coordination of early childhood care and education in the republic of korea. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 6(2), 1–20. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F2288- 6729-6-2-1.pdf Kaga, Y., Bennett, J., & Moss, P. (2010). Caring and learning together: a cross-national study on the integration of early childhood care and education within education. Paris. Retrieved from https://education.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/linc/policies/integratingEarlyCareEducation.pd f Kagan (Ed.), S. L. (2018). The early advantatge 1 - Early childhood systems that lead by example: A comparative focus on international early childhood education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 205 Kagan, S. L., Araujo, M. C., Jaimovich, A., & Cruz Aguayo, Y. (2015). Understanding systems theory and thinking: early childhood education in latin america and the caribbean. In A. Farrell, S. L. Kagan, & E. K. M. Tisdall (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Early Childhood Research (pp. 1–27). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473920859 Kagan, S. L., & Roth, J. L. (2017). Transforming early childhood systems for future generations: obligations and opportunities. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-017-0194-4 Kalita, A., & Mondal, S. (2012). Role of innovative institutional structures in integrated governance: A case study of integrating health and nutrition programs in Chhattisgarh, India. Journal of Health, Organisation and Management, 26(6), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777261211277005 Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. A. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 22–44. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0157 Kersiene, K., & Savaneviciene, A. (2009). The formation and management of organizational competence based on cross-cultural perspective. Engineering Economics, 5, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.65.5.11619 Kimberlin, S. E. (2010). Advocacy by nonprofits: Roles and practices of core advocacy organizations and direct service agencies. Journal of Policy Practice, 9(3), 164–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/15588742.2010.487249 King, B. G., Felin, T., & Whetten, D. A. (2010). Finding the organization in organizational theory: A meta-theory of the organization as a social actor. Organization Science, 21(1), 290–305. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0443 Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman. Le Deist, F. D., & Winterton, J. (2005). What is competence? Human Resource Development International, 8(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886042000338227 Lipkin, P. H., Alexander, J., Cartwright, J. D., Desch, L. W., Duby, J. C., Edwards, D. R., … Skipper, S. M. (2005). Care coordination in the medical home: Integrating health and related systems of care for children with special health care needs. Pediatrics, 116(5), 1238–1244. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-2070 Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniv). Russell Sage Foundation. 206 Long, J. C., Cunningham, F. C., & Braithwaite, J. (2013). Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-158 Lutabingwa, J., & Gray, K. R. (1997). NGOs in sub-saharan Africa: Developing critical capacity for policy advocacy. International Journal on World Peace, 14(3), 35–70. Melville, R. (2010). Umbrella organizations. In H. K. Anheier & S. Toepler (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Civil Society (pp. 1577–1582). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-93996-4 Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. Ministry of Community Development Gender and Children. (2008). Child development policy, second edition. Ministry of Community Development, Gender, and Children. Ministry of Community Development Women Affairs and Children. (1996). Child development policy. Government of the United Republic of Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.tzonline.org/pdf/childdevelopmentpolicy.pdf Ministry of Education and Culture. (1995). Education and training policy. Dar Es Salaam: Ministry of Education and Culture. Ministry of Education Science and Technology. (2016). Basic education syllabus for standard 1. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. Mosley, J. E. (2011). Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: What tactical choices reveal about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(3), 435–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009346335 National ECED stakeholder meeting summary (2018). Dodoma. Neuman, M. J., & Devercelli, A. E. (2012). Early childhood policies in sub-saharan Africa : Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 6(2), 21–34. Neuman, M. J., & Devercelli, A. E. (2013). What matters most for early childhood development: a framework paper (Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) No. 5). Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/Background/ECD/F ramework_SABER-ECD.pdf 207 Neuman, M. J., & Okeng’, L. (2019). Early childhood policies in low-and middle-income countries. Early Years, 39(3), 223–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/09575146.2019.1636571 Nyerere, J. (1967). Education for self-reliance. In J. K. Nyerere (Ed.), Ujamaa: Essays on socialism (pp. 44–75). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1596/1020-797X Nyerere, J. K. (1962). Ujamaa: The basis for African socialism. In J. K. Nyerere (Ed.), Ujamaa: Essays on socialism (pp. 1–12). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Oxford University Press. Onyx, J., Armitage, L., Dalton, B., Melville, R., Casey, J., & Banks, R. (2010). Advocacy with Gloves on: The “Manners” of strategy used by some third sector organizations undertaking advocacy in NSW and Queensland. Voluntas, 21(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266- 009-9106-z Parliment of the United Republic of Tanzania. The non-governmental organizations act (2002). United Republic of Tanzania. Parliment of the United Republic of Tanzania. (2015). The Statistics Act. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: The United Republic of Tanzania. Parliment of the United Republic of Tanzania. Amendments to the 2015 Statistics Act (2018). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, Tanzania. Retrieved from https://www.nbs.go.tz/nbs/takwimu/ACT/THE_WRITTEN_LAWS_ACT_2018.pdf Pérez-Escamilla, R., Cavallera, V., Tomlinson, M., & Dua, T. (2017). Scaling up Integrated Early Childhood Development programs: lessons from four countries. Child: Care, Health and Development, 44(1), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12480 Researcher A, & Researcher B. (2015). Country case report – Tanzania. Reviewer A., & Reviewer B. (2019). Organizational review of the [ECNetwork]. Richter, L. M., Daelmans, B., Lombardi, J., Heymann, J., Boo, F. L., Behrman, J. R., … Darmstadt, G. L. (2017). Investing in the foundation of sustainable development: pathways to scale up for early childhood development. The Lancet, 389(10064), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31698-1 Roberts, M., Hsiao, W., Berman, P., & Reich, M. (2008). Getting health reform right: A guide to improving performance and equity. New York: Oxford University Press. Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. 208 Samoff, J. (2012). Institutionalizing International Influence. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), In Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local (4th ed., pp. 55–85). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 Schmiedinger, B., Valentin, K., & Stephan, E. (2005). Competence Based Business Development – Organizational Competencies as Basis for Successful Companies. In I- KNOW. Graz, Austria. Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2016). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge. Sidney, M. S. (2006). Policy formation. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy (pp. 79–87). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant Observation (1st ed.). Wadsworth. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications, Inc. Taatila, V. (2004). The concept of organizational competence – A foundational analysis. University of Jyväskylä. Tanzania Institute of Education. (2016). Curriculum and syllabus for pre-primary education. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The National Council of NGOs (NaCoNGO). (2008). Non-governmental organization code of conduct. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.tnnc.go.tz/documents/The Non Governmental Organizations Code of Conduct.pdf The United Republic of Tanzania. (1977). The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania. Retrieved from http://www.judiciary.go.tz/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/constitution.pdf The United Republic of Tanzania. The national policy on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (2001). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02217368 The World Bank. (n.d.). SABER ECD. Retrieved April 21, 2020, from http://saber.worldbank.org/index.cfm?indx=8&pd=6&sub=0 UNICEF. (2016). UNICEF Annual Report 2016: United Republic of Tanzania. UNICEF. (2019). UNICEF Tanzania annual report 2018. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. New York. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902 03-14 AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf 209 United Nations. (2015a). The Millennium Development Goals Report. United Nations, 72. https://doi.org/978-92-1-101320-7 United Nations. (2015b). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2 United Republic of Tanzania. (2009). Law Of The Child Act. Retrieved from http://polis.parliament.go.tz/PAMS/docs/21-2009.pdf United Republic of Tanzania. (2014). Education and training policy (unofficial English translation. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Urban, M., Cardini, A., Guevara, J., Okengo, L., & Romero, R. F. (2019). Early Childhood Development Education and Care : The Future is What We Build Today. T20 Japan. Urban, M., Cardini, A., & Romero, R. F. (2018). It takes more than a village: Effective early childhood development, education and care services require competent systems. T20 Argentina: Future of work and education for the digital age. Retrieved from www.t20argentina.org Vargas-Barón, E. (2005). Planning policies for early childhood development : Guidelines for action. Vargas-Barón, E. (2013). Building and strengthening national systems for early childhood development. In Pia Rebello Britto, P. L. Engle, & C. M. Super (Eds.), Handbook of Early Childhood Development Research and Its Impact on Global Policy (pp. 443–466). Retrieved from https://lms-sdsn-new-infra.edcastcloud.com/asset-v1:the-sdg- academy+5247ecd+september-2017+type@asset+block/Vargas- Baron_2013_Building_and_Strengthening_National_Systems_for_Early_Childhood_Devel opment.pdf Weible, C. M., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2019). Sharpening advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, 0(0), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12360 WHO, UNICEF, & World Bank Group. (2016). Advancing early childhood development: From science to scale, an executive summary for The Lancet’s series. The Lancet. Wilinski, B., Huy Nguyen, C., & Landgraf, J. M. (2016). Global Vision, Local Reality: Transforming Pre-Primary Teacher Training in Tanzania. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 19(191), 6–25. Williams, P. (2002). The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration, 80(1), 103–124. Williams, P. (2011). The life and times of the boundary spanner. Journal of Integrated Care, 19(3), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/14769011111148140 210 World Bank. (2012). Tanzania early childhood development. SABER country report. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/986161468134082667/pdf/799320WP0SABER 0box0379795B00PUBLIC0.pdf World Bank. (2015). The early learning partnership: delivering quality early learning for children around the world. Retrieved from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/421151450461774700/ELP-Overview-V15-web.pdf World Bank Group. (2016). Education Global Practice: Smarter Education Systems for Brighter Futures. Retrieved from http://wbgfiles.worldbank.org/documents/hdn/ed/saber/supporting_doc/brief/SABER_ECD _Brief.pdf World Health Organization, United Nations Children’s Fund, & World Bank Group. (2018). Nurturing care for early child development: A framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential. Geneva: World Health Organization. Yoshikawa, H., & Currie, M. (2011). Culture, public policy, and child development. In X. Chen & K. Rubin (Eds.), Culture and Children’s Socio-Emotional Development. New York: Guilford Press. Yoshikawa, Hirokazu, Wuermli, A. J., Raikes, A., Kim, S., Kabay, S. B., Alderman, H., … Yousafzai, A. (2018). Towards high-quality early childhood development programs and policies at national scale: Directions for research in global contexts. Society for Research in Child Development, 31(1), 1–36. Retrieved from www.scrd.orgwww.scrd.org 211