When we speak about early learning outcomes, we often imagine classrooms, routines, and structured environments. But not all children are reached through early learning programmes. Some remain outside the system entirely.

A sub-study of the Thrive by Five Index focused on four-year-olds who were not enrolled in early learning programmes – children from the lowest three socio-economic quintiles, many living in contexts shaped by unemployment, material deprivation, and multidimensional poverty.

Although not nationally representative, the study was intentionally designed to make visible a group of children who are often missing from centre-based assessments and policy conversations. To understand what it truly takes to reach them, we asked the people who know best – our assessors.

Through online focus groups, assessors who conducted ELOM assessments in the homes of 272 children shared candid reflections on the realities of this work. Their insights reveal both the complexity and the value of home-based developmental assessment.

What it takes to reach a child at home

1. Finding the household is the first hurdle

Even with a listing team preceding them, assessors often struggled to locate households. GPS coordinates were sometimes incomplete. Directions were unclear. Phone numbers did not always work. In some cases, the same child was listed twice.

In rural areas and informal settlements, where landmarks matter more than street numbers, assessors relied heavily on community members for guidance. Something as simple as including a caregiver or child’s nickname in documentation could make the difference between finding a home quickly or searching for hours.

As one assessor put it:

“There was times that the addresses were  incorrect and then you have to ask around, do you know this person? Where can I find this child?”

Reaching a child was rarely straightforward. It required persistence, humility, and local knowledge.

2. Managing expectations and hope

Door-to-door data collection demands trust. Yet awareness campaigns about the Thrive by Five study had not always reached these families. For some caregivers, this was their first interaction with any formal early learning system.

Understandably, some believed that participation would lead directly to school placement, food support, or financial assistance. Assessors found themselves carefully explaining the purpose of the assessment while holding space for disappointment.

One assessor reflected:

“Parents or caregivers were expecting a lot from us. They believe after the assessment we will give them some food and money.”

This is delicate work. It requires ethical clarity and emotional intelligence. Future data collection efforts must ensure that fieldworkers are equipped not only with technical training, but with the language and confidence to explain research in accessible, grounded ways.

3. Conducting standardised assessments in non-standard spaces

Homes are not designed as testing environments.

Assessors described limited space, noise, interruptions, cooking, caregiving responsibilities, uneven floors, and constant movement. Assessments were conducted on beds, on floors, outdoors, and sometimes in cars.

Maintaining strict standardisation under these conditions is challenging. ELOM requires precise administration – where the assessor sits, how materials are presented, how instructions are delivered. Training must therefore include guidance on where flexibility is appropriate and where fidelity cannot be compromised.

Yet there is another side to this reality. Being in the home offers contextual insight that centre-based assessments cannot.

As one assessor said simply:

“You see the reality of the child’s life. It changes how you understand the results.”

It reveals daily routines, stressors, environmental constraints, and strengths.

4. Kit management, hygiene, and practical realities

Many homes did not have clean tables or defined spaces for assessment. Assessors brought additional sanitiser, wipes, cloths, and protective materials to ensure safety for themselves and for children.

Suggestions for future work included:

• Providing folding or tray tables
• Including mats for floor-based assessments
• Supplying sanitising materials as standard equipment

These details may seem operational. They are not. They directly affect feasibility, time, and data quality.

5. Time – the hidden cost

Home-based assessments take significantly longer than centre-based ones.

In early learning programmes, assessors can set up once and assess multiple children. In homes, every visit involves:

• Travel and navigation
• Set-up and breakdown
• Rapport-building
• Managing disruptions
• Careful closure

As one assessor explained:

“When you’re done with that assessment, you need to pack up and everything, load it into a car, go to the next destination, take your things out again, set up again… and then there’s times that you need to build rapport.”

Targets and workload expectations must reflect this reality. Otherwise, we risk placing unreasonable pressure on fieldworkers.

6. Attention, emotion, and first experiences

For some children, this was their first structured one-on-one learning interaction.

Distractions were constant – siblings, neighbours, noise, unfamiliar adults. Focus fluctuated. Yet assessors noted that many children settled with time, particularly when rapport was built patiently and respectfully.

In some cases, the familiarity of home made children feel safer than they might in an unfamiliar centre.

7. Trust is foundational

Across all focus groups, one theme stood out: rapport with caregivers is not optional. It is foundational.

The way an assessor greets a caregiver, introduces the assessment, and positions themselves in the space shapes the entire experience. Too distant, and trust is lost. Too familiar, and boundaries blur.

This is relational work. It demands sensitivity, self-awareness, and professionalism.

8. Assessor safety and wellbeing

Assessors travelled long distances, navigated unfamiliar areas, and worked in environments that posed physical and health risks.

They highlighted the need for:

• Stronger safety planning and pairing strategies
• Clear check-in systems
• Community-specific protocols
• Local knowledge regarding safe entry and movement
• Attention to practical risks, including vehicle number plates that might signal outsiders

Fieldwork in vulnerable communities carries emotional and physical demands. Supporting assessors must be part of responsible research design.

The silver lining – caregivers’ commitment to their children

Amid the challenges, assessors consistently described something powerful: caregivers’ genuine interest in their children’s learning.

One assessor shared:

“They were really interested to see how is the child doing… Must I teach her the colours? All those things. They were very interested.”

What became clear is this: the issue is not lack of care. It is lack of access.

The assessment visit sometimes became one of the only formal engagements families had around their child’s development. That moment should not be wasted.

Future home-based work could responsibly incorporate:

• Sensitive, real-time feedback
• Simple, low-resource stimulation ideas
• Referral pathways to early learning services where available

Assessment can measure. But it can also affirm.

Why this matters

Home-based ELOM assessments are demanding, resource-intensive, and rarely tidy. But they offer something centre-based work cannot: an unfiltered view into the lived realities of children most at risk of being left behind.

They help us:

• Reach children who would otherwise remain invisible
• Understand development within real household contexts
• Recognise both barriers and strengths
• Ensure that children outside formal programmes are included in evidence about early learning

If we are serious about inclusion, we cannot only measure the children who are easiest to reach.

Acknowledgements

We extend deep appreciation to our assessors, whose courage, resilience, and professionalism ensured that non-enrolled children were included in the Thrive by Five Index:

• Mogamat Faeez Alfos
• Lungiswa Dunjwa
• Mulalo Thelma Mudau
• Mbalenhle Theresa Kheswa
• Thab’sile Prudence Mthembu
• Tsakani Ingrid Mabuza
• Brinthia Bridget Dawood
• Boipelo Nolwazi Tagane
• Thecla Siphesihle Ntombifuthi Mkhize
• Balungile Princess Gambushe

We also thank the communities, families, caregivers, and children who welcomed us into their homes. Your openness made this work possible.