Can those who need it get it? - Government funding for early childhood development: Ilifa Labantwana
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Government funding for early childhood development:
Can those who need it get it?
Sonja Giese
Debbie Budlender
Lizette Berry
Steve Motlatla
Hombakazi Zide
November 2011Foreword Isn’t it funny that young children, who have the least say in society, will ultimately have the most say on what happens to our country? If they are ill, stunted and miss out on early learning, we face a low-growth future mired in many of the same problems we face today. If they are healthy, get enough food and given opportunities to learn creatively, our prospects for education, employment, social stability and economic growth are great. What an opportunity for South Africa! If the main consideration for programme funding were returns on investment, early childhood development would be a top priority. The evidence – in terms of educational outcomes, employability and eco- nomic productivity – is clear. In fact, as we look for quantum leap strategies to pull us out of our educational quagmire and put us on a path to accelerated growth, early childhood development stares us in the eye. Here’s the opportunity: 70% of young children do not attend preschool or participate in other early childhood development (ECD) services. Inevitably, those who don’t participate would benefit most because they tend to come from poorer families. Government funding for ECD has increased over the past few years, but it has largely been for Grade R provision. That’s a good start, but the real gains lie in younger children whose brains are developing fastest. This report reviews state funding for ECD. Its value lies in the fact that it looks at funding flows both top-down by analysing funding channels, and bottom-up through the eyes of ECD providers. Based on national and provincial budget reviews and research in three municipalities, it tries to answer a simple question: Can those who need Government funding get it? If they can’t, we’re missing one of the greatest opportunities of our time. David Harrison Chief Executive Officer DG Murray Trust
Contents
Foreword .......................................................................................................................................................3
Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................................6
1 Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... 7
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................7
State funding for ECD in South Africa...................................................................................................................7
Department of Social Development............................................................................................................7
Department of Education...........................................................................................................................7
The Expanded Public Works Programme...................................................................................................8
The National Development Agency............................................................................................................8
Local Government.....................................................................................................................................9
Factors affecting access to funds and equity in funding of ECD services...............................................................9
2 Background and methodology..................................................................................................................... 13
Methodology .....................................................................................................................................................13
South African research areas.............................................................................................................................13
Research limitations..........................................................................................................................................15
Structure of this report.......................................................................................................................................15
3 Overview of relevant policy.......................................................................................................................... 17
4 Budget processes and ECD allocations......................................................................................................... 21
Sources of ECD funding.....................................................................................................................................22
National and provincial funding of ECD by Department of Social Development..........................................22
Tracking ECD budget allocations within DSD..................................................................................22
Funding beyond the centre-based subsidy....................................................................................24
Indicators......................................................................................................................................25
National and provincial funding of ECD by Department of Basic Education...............................................26
Expanded Public Works Programme........................................................................................................28
Community Works Programme......................................................................................................32
Non-state EPWP...........................................................................................................................33
The National Development Agency..........................................................................................................33
5 Department of Social Development support for ECD in the sites..................................................................... 35
Support provided by DSD...................................................................................................................................35
Subsidies in the sites...............................................................................................................................35
Infrastructure support..............................................................................................................................36
Training and capacity building.................................................................................................................37
Programme funding.................................................................................................................................39
Accessing the DSD subsidy - requirements and processes.................................................................................40
Step 1: Dual registration with DSD...........................................................................................................40
Step 2: Application for funding.................................................................................................................42
Step 3: Registration as supplier................................................................................................................42
Step 4: Claims process............................................................................................................................43
Step 5: Transfer of funds and reporting...................................................................................................44
Factors aiding and inhibiting access to DSD funding..........................................................................................44Knowledge of funding..............................................................................................................................44
Knowledge of registration requirements and processes.............................................................................45
Registration backlog................................................................................................................................46
The norms and standards........................................................................................................................46
Rezoning.................................................................................................................................................47
Environmental health inspectors..............................................................................................................47
DSD capacity and conditions of work.......................................................................................................48
Clearance certificate................................................................................................................................48
NPO certificate........................................................................................................................................48
Attitudes towards ECD practitioners.........................................................................................................49
6 Department of Education support for ECD in the sites................................................................................... 51
Support available from DoE................................................................................................................................51
Salaries and subsidies for Grade R in community ECD centres.................................................................51
Funding of training for ECD practitioners..................................................................................................53
Other support provided by DoE to community-based ECD........................................................................54
Accessing DOE funding.....................................................................................................................................54
Prescribed requirements and procedures................................................................................................54
Claims and transfers................................................................................................................................55
Challenges associated with DoE funding.............................................................................................................56
7 Expanded Public Works Programme in the sites............................................................................................ 59
8 National Development Agency support for ECD in the sites............................................................................ 63
9 Local Government support for ECD in the sites............................................................................................. 65
Mbashe Local Municipality.................................................................................................................................65
Ratlou Local Municipality...................................................................................................................................66
Stellenbosch Local Municipality.........................................................................................................................67
Other municipalities...........................................................................................................................................68
10 Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................................................ 71
Appendix: examples of municipal support for ECD........................................................................................... 72
References ...................................................................................................................................... 74Acronyms
AIDS Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
approp appropriation
ASW auxiliary social worker
BAS basic accounting system
CDW Community Development Worker
CoT City of Tshwane
CSO Civil Society Organisation
CWP Community Works Programme
DHSS Department of Health and Social Security
DoE Department of Education
DoH Department of Health
DSD Department of Social Development
EC Eastern Cape
ECD early childhood development
EHI Environmental Health Inspector
EMIS Education Management Information System
EPWP Expanded Public Works Programme
FET Further Education and Training
FS Free State
GT Gauteng
HCBC Home and Community-Based Care
HIV Human immunodeficiency virus
ID Identity Document
IDP Integrated Development Plan
IDT Independent Development Trust
KZN KwaZulu-Natal
LM Limpopo
MEC Member of Executive Council
MP Mpumalanga
MTEF medium-term expenditure framework
NC Northern Cape
NDA National Development Agency
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIP National Integrated Plan for Early Childhood Development
NPO Non-Profit Organisation
NQF National Qualifications Framework
NW North West
PED Provincial Education Department
PERSAL Personal salary system
SASSA South African Social Security Agency
SETA Sector Education and Training Authority
TIPS Trade and Industrial Policy Strategies
TREE Training and Resource for Early Education
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
VAT Value-added tax
WC Western Cape
WCED Western Cape Education Department
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
61 Executive Summary
This research set out to determine the extent to which ECD service providers are able to access
state funding for ECD. It explored: government ECD funding sources; prescribed procedures,
systems and requirements for funding; actual procedures for accessing state funding; support
from local government for ECD services within selected municipalities; and factors that enable
and inhibit access to state funding for ECD service providers.
Methodology ing ECD although much of this funding increased over the past decade from
is not “new” funding as such. Some less than R335 million in 2003/04 to
A multi-method approach was adopt- funding for ECD is also available from more than a billion rand in 2011/12.
ed. This included: the National Development Agency. Funding for non-centre based activi-
• a desk review of previous re- ties (ECD programme funding) is even
search and other data sources There was little evidence from this re- more difficult to track than the subsidy.
search of financial support from local The one thing that is clear is that much
• a policy review of government ob-
government for ECD. less is allocated for non-centre based
ligations and prescribed require-
ECD than for centre-based.
ments and procedures
• analysis of budgets within national Department of Social Within the sites, approximately one third
and provincial spheres of govern-
Development of the known ECD centres in Mbashe
ment
(Eastern Cape) reportedly received the
Funding from the Department of Social DSD subsidy at the time of the research.
Primary research was undertaken in Development is available through two In the North West site, about 16 of the
one municipality in each of three prov- main channels: 74 ECD centres on the DSD database
inces, namely: • A subsidy provided to registered in Ratlou were receiving the subsidy
• Mbashe in the Eastern Cape ECD centres – the subsidy is and in the Western Cape approximately
calculated per child per day for 130 of the 306 ECD centres on the DSD
• Ratlou in the North West
children 0-4 years whose caregiv- database for the district were receiving
• Stellenbosch in the Western Cape
ers pass an income means test. the subsidy. These proportions give an
over-optimistic picture of actual reach
• Programme funding for NPOs
Interviews were conducted with 61 lo- given that many ECD centres are not
in respect of ECD programmes
cal ECD practitioners and 37 govern- recorded on the DSD database.
(mostly non-centre based).
ment officials.
Western Cape reported funding to
Both channels are difficult to track with- NGOs for a range of non-centre based
State funding for ECD in in state budgets because they are “hid- activities. There was less evidence of
den” within the Child Care and Protec- ECD programme funding in the North
South Africa tion Services Budget Sub-Programme. West and almost no evidence of DSD
Tracking expenditure is complicated by support for non-centre-based ECD in
The overwhelming bulk of ECD-related the fact that ECD-specific reporting in the Eastern Cape.
budget allocations are made at provin- budget books and to National Treasury
cial level by the Departments of Social on budgets and performance indicators
Development (DSD) and Education is non-standard or missing. Department of Education
(DOE). The Expanded Publics Works
Programme and Community Work Sub- Despite these challenges it is clear that The Department of Education has sev-
Programme also play a role in support- subsidy funding for ECD centres has eral provincial flows for ECD funding.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
7The most important of these are:
• Funding for Grade R in schools Contrary to the evidence from the budget books, research partici-
(not the focus of this research). pants reported a perceived decline in funding support for commu-
• Subsidies for community-based nity-based Grade R in all three sites ... There was, however, strong
Grade Rs registered as ‘inde- evidence that training is reaching many ECD centres across the
pendent schools’ – this may take
the form of a per child subsidy or provinces.
a salary for a Grade R practition-
er. The amount of the per capita
There was, however, strong evidence ing for community-based ECD assis-
learner subsidy is based on the
that training is reaching many ECD tants) have been “relabelled” as EPWP
number of Grade R learners and
centres across the provinces. Twenty achievements. There is therefore a se-
the quintile ranking of the school.
eight of the 52 ECD centres in the rious danger of double-counting and
• Funding of training fees and
sample had staff enrolled in training while many ECD activities are reported
stipends for those on learnerships
at NQF levels 1, 4 or 5 at the time against the EPWP, this does not neces-
under the social sector EPWP.
of the research or reported that staff sarily reflect “new” funding.
had recently completed NQF training
Unlike in DSD, the provincial DOE or were due to begin training within EPWP funding is also available via
budgets have a distinct programme, the next few months. Most of this the Community Works Programme
with several sub-programmes, devoted training is funded via the Department (CWP). This programme is part of the
to ECD. This makes it simpler to track of Education as part of the EPW Pro- new category of EPWP II and pays a
ECD allocations. The ECD programme gramme. stipend to community members for
accounts for a small share of the over- work on projects that address needs
all provincial education budgets, but identified by the communities in
the share has increased markedly The Expanded Public Works which the project operates. The pro-
over time from only 0.7% in 2006/07 Programme gramme cannot fund ECD centres di-
to about 2% in 2012/13. However, the rectly, but ECD-related activities can
main focus of the budget programme The Expanded Public Works Pro- be included in work done by com-
is on Grade R in public schools. gramme was first introduced in 2004, munity members. There is evidence
with two components related to ECD, of this happening in about 20 of the
There are large variations across namely: (1) increasing the number of 55 CWP sites nationally, including
provinces in the funding allocated to registered ECD centres and subsidised one of the research sites, if one uses
community-based Grade R. Alloca- children, and the subsidy value and a very broad definition of ECD. Access
tions to community-based Grade R (2) training of ECD practitioners servic- to CWP funding is dependent on the
in the Western Cape and North West ing the 0-4 age group. existence of an implementing partner
increased between 2008/09 and within the area that is willing to take
2012/13. The Eastern Cape’s annual EPWP II, which started in April 2010, the risks associated with short-term
allocations to community-based Grade brought several important changes rel- contracts and is able to manage com-
R vary markedly from year to year. evant to ECD. These included: plicated administrative systems.
• the introduction of a minimum
Contrary to the evidence from the stipend
budget books, research participants The National Development
• a new category of EPWP not man-
reported a perceived decline in funding
aged by government Agency
support for community-based Grade R
• training for ECD practitioners The National Development Agency is
in all three sites. Several ECD centres
beyond the 0-4 year age group another potential source of govern-
noted that their Grade R funding had
stopped in 2009 and DOE officials ment funding for ECD, although the re-
who were interviewed acknowledged EPWP reporting is even more unreli- searchers were unable to obtain much
a move away from community-based able (and contradictory) than report- information on this funding source. The
Grade R with an emphasis on promot- ing for other sources of funds. Some of NDA is funded from the national DSD
ing Grade R within ordinary public the ECD-related activities funded (for Budget with an allocation of R161,4
schools. example, centre subsidies and fund- million in the 2011/2012 financial
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
8year. However, the NDA reports seri- Factors affecting access to funds and equity in
ous under-spending in previous years
and the total number of projects fund- funding of ECD services
ed has remained constant or declined
over time. In the Eastern Cape, site The research identified many factors that affect access to funding for ECD services:
practitioners reported receiving NDA
funding for ECD with most funds being • Neither the DSD nor the DOE is under any obligation to fund ECD services,
allocated for infrastructure. even those serving the poorest communities.
• In order to qualify for DOE funding for Grade R, ECD centres offering Grade
R must first be registered with the Department of Education as an independ-
Local Government ent school. Registration requirements differ across provinces. Knowledge of
registration is poor and access to registration processes is severely limited.
Municipalities are responsible for en- • ECD services are legally required to register with the Department of So-
suring that ECD centres comply with cial Development. Non centre-based ECD services must be registered as
Municipal Health and Safety By-Laws. an “ECD programme”. ECD centres must register both as an “ECD pro-
Municipalities may include ECD within gramme” and as a “partial care facility”. This dual registration is both a
their Integrated Development Plans legal requirement and a prerequisite for DSD funding. It is also a source of
but there is no obligation on local gov- confusion.
ernment to fund ECD activities.
• The DSD registration processes require compliance with a set of stringent
norms and standards which are impossible to achieve for many centres,
The research found varied levels of
particularly those serving poor and rural communities. While well-inten-
support from municipalities for ECD.
tioned, these norms and standards prejudice those centres serving the
There was no evidence of local or dis-
poorest communities; hence reinforcing inequalities in early childhood care
trict municipality funding for ECD in
and education.
the Eastern Cape site. In Ratlou, the
municipality provided no financial • DSD registration is also dependent on centres’ compliance with health and
support for ECD activities but report- safety by-laws of the relevant municipality. Municipal Environmental Health
edly assisted with land and infrastruc- Inspectors are responsible for determining compliance. Municipal capacity
ture. In contrast, a range of support constraints mean that inspection visits may be delayed for months, holding
was available for ECD from the better- up the registration process.
resourced Cape Winelands District • Many ECD centres are established on private land. Registration with DSD
Municipality in the Western Cape. This requires that private land be zoned appropriately. Rezoning can be costly
included training of ECD practitioners, and time-consuming. This is a further barrier to registration and hence ac-
assistance with registration and provi- cess to funds.
sion of (limited) funding. While grant • There is strong resistance on the part of some officials to registering ECD
amounts were typically small and centres because of the perception that individuals are establishing centres
once-off, requirements for accessing as money-making ventures. The reality is that most ECD centres generate
these grants were less stringent than very little income for the individuals who run them. In some instances run-
the requirements for accessing provin- ning a centre may even deplete household income.
cial funding. • Implementation of the Children’s Act began in April 2010, making it illegal
for any ECD centre to operate without being registered with the DSD. The
complicated processes involved in registration and the large numbers of
historically unregistered facilities have resulted in bottlenecks and backlogs.
Municipalities may include • Once registered with DSD or DOE, access to funding is dependent on the
ECD within their Integrated centre meeting additional department-specific criteria, including registra-
Development Plans but tion with the NPO directorate. The delay in obtaining NPO certificates
presents a further barrier to accessing funds.
there is no obligation on lo-
• ECD centres may only claim the DSD subsidy in respect of children who are
cal government to fund ECD eligible in terms of a means test based on the income of the child’s parents.
activities. The onus lies on centres to obtain the necessary supporting documents to
prove eligibility.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
9• ECD centres may only claim DOE funding for Grade R learners if they have a
minimum number of learners within the centre. In rural areas the number of
Grade R learners is often insufficient to qualify for a DOE subsidy.
• ECD centres reported being unable to access funding for children aged five
years who are not yet old enough to proceed to Grade R. These children are
no longer eligible for the DSD subsidy and cannot yet qualify for Grade R
support.
The research also identified numerous instances of inequity in provisioning for
ECD across provinces and between municipalities. This is evident, for example, in
the different income thresholds used in the DSD means test to determine eligibility
for the subsidy, and in the number of days of the year for which the subsidy is paid
in each province.
Inequity in remuneration of practitioners is also a concern. Disparity in remu-
neration between Grade R practitioners and those working with younger children
means that the better trained practitioners are lured into training and teaching
posts for older children where remuneration is better. The quality of ECD services
for the youngest children is then compromised.
Recommendations
The research suggests that the following recommendations could be considered:
• S ystems applied to enable better tracking of ECD allocations and expenditure.
• A review and simplification of processes for ECD registration, funding application and claims.
• “ Relaxing” of the norms and standards for ECD registration, while still maintaining minimum acceptable levels.
• I mproved linkages between the different departments and between provincial and local government to improve effec-
tive use of resources, avoid unnecessary duplication of administrative processes and address funding gaps.
• G reater equity across provinces and municipalities in terms of ECD provisioning.
• B etter training and access to information for ECD practitioners and officials on legislation governing ECD provision and
on funding sources and application processes.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
10Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
11Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
122 Background and methodology
This research was commissioned by Ilifa Labantwana, a national Early Childhood Development (ECD) project
supporting ECD innovation in South Africa. The project focuses on marginalised and poverty-affected children
living in rural or hard-to-reach communities. It is a four-year initiative funded equally by three partners: The
Elma Foundation, The DG Murray Trust and The UBS Optimus Foundation.
Ilifa Labantwana’s mission is to ensure
that by 2013 increased numbers of chil- This research responds primarily to the core activity of promoting
dren in rural and isolated communities
access to government support. The research aimed to identify fund-
in South Africa enjoy access to quality
early childhood development education, ing that is available for ECD within key government programmes at
social services and government support. national and provincial levels and to determine the extent to which
ECD service providers are aware of and accessing these funds.
There are seven core areas of activity
that make up the Ilifa interventions.
This research responds primarily to
the core activity of promoting access The study excludes a review of fund- Methodology
to government support. The research ing for Grade R ECD services within
aimed to identify funding that is avail- ordinary public and private schools. The research was undertaken primarily
able for ECD within key government It does however include a review of in the Eastern Cape (EC), the North West
programmes at national and provincial funding for Grade R services within (NW) and Western Cape (WC). Within
levels and to determine the extent to community-based ECD centres. each of these provinces, the primary
which ECD service providers are aware In terms of Pre-Grade R, the study research focused on activities in one lo-
of and accessing these funds. looks at services located within ECD cal municipality, namely: Mbashe in EC,
centres (eg. preschools, educare Ratlou in NW and Stellenbosch in WC.
The objectives of the study are: centres, crèches) and non-centre These were selected in consultation with
• to describe existing government based ECD activities. Ilifa partners. Selection took into account
policies to support ECD pro-
grammes and clarify prescribed
procedures, systems and require- South African research areas
ments for funding.
• to identify state ECD funding
sources and describe actual
procedures, systems and require- Ratlou
ments for accessing this funding. North West
• to identify support (financial,
administrative, informational,
other) for ECD services at local
government level in selected
municipalities.
• to investigate public access to
information on ECD funding and Eastern Cape
subsidies and identify the factors
Mbashe
that enable and inhibit access
Western
to this funding by ECD service Stellenbosch Cape
providers.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
13the need for varied contexts as well as explored the extent to which local sample were centre-based (20/20 in
practical considerations and future plans ECD practitioners and relevant NW, 18/21 in EC and 14/20 in WC).
of the Ilifa Labantwana project. officials were aware of funding This reflects the predominantly centre-
available for ECD and were knowl- based nature of ECD services within
The research took place over seven edgeable about requirements these sites. The few non centre-based
months, between February and Au- and procedures for accessing this ECD activities identified included play
gust 2011. A multi-method approach funding. Interviews also explored groups, home visits, caregiver training
was used, as follows: the factors that aid and inhibit and parenting skills programmes, sto-
access to state funding for ECD. ry-telling and library facilities, and the
• A desk review was undertaken Interviewees were purposefully provision of assistance to ECD centres
to identify and draw on previous selected to include a range of with registration, equipment and infra-
related research and other data experiences with regard to fund structure.
sources. access and administration.
• A policy review was done to Table 1 below provides a more de-
identify obligations on the state for A total of 112 interviews were conduct- tailed breakdown of the 52 ECD cen-
ECD service provision and require- ed, including 40 in the Eastern Cape, tres that were included in the sample.
ments and prescribed procedures 34 in the Western Cape, 29 in the Each provincial sample purposefully
for funding of ECD activities. North West and nine interviews with included centres that were registered
• A budget analysis was carried out representatives from national depart- with the DSD and those that were not,
of current national budgetary al- ments or organisations. as well those that received funding
locations and expenditure for ECD from the DSD and those that did not.
within the national and provincial Within each of the three sites, the re-
Departments of Basic Education searchers included a sample of 20 For sampling purposes, names and
and Social Development. Detailed ECD service providers, including ECD contact details of ECD services were
analysis of provincial budgets was centres and non-centre based activi- obtained from the Department of Social
undertaken in the three selected ties where these were available. Most Development (for all three sites), the
provinces only. A more basic com- of the ECD services included in the municipality (NW and WC) and ECD fo-
parative analysis was included on rums (EC and WC). Services were also
all provinces for which information identified through snowball sampling in
was available. Telephonic inter- order to ensure that the sample was not
Most of the ECD services biased towards the more ‘high profile’
views and email communication
with key staff within the relevant included in the sample were centres. Most of the interviews in the
departments were undertaken centre-based (20/20 in NW, EC and WC were conducted in person,
to supplement, substantiate and and half the interviews in the NW were.
18/21 in EC and 14/20 in WC).
query information obtained through Due to the extensive distances involved,
the documentary budget analysis.
This reflects the predominant- the remaining NW interviews were com-
• Most of the primary research ly centre-based nature of ECD pleted telephonically. The majority of
services within these sites. interviews were conducted in the inter-
took place in the three selected
viewees’ mother tongue.
case study sites. The research
Table 1. Registration and funding status of ECD centres included in the sample
Province Registration status DSD funding
Registered Unregistered, Unregistered, Registration Yes No
but in process of and registration status unknown
registering process not started
Eastern Cape 1 3 14 - 3 15
North West 14 3 2 1 8 12
Western Cape 9 5 - - 6 8
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
14Research limitations
The study included NGO re-
spondents from only three mu-
The study had several limitations.
nicipalities and field samples
• The researchers experienced difficulty tracking national and provincial budgets
for ECD because, as discussed further below, there is seldom a budget line cannot therefore in any way be
item for this service. Where there are line items, it is often unclear (even to taken as representative. The
those responsible for the relevant activities) exactly what the allocation is for. variability across municipalities
• It is generally difficult to obtain data from officials and, when provided, data (even within the same province)
are often untrustworthy and contradict other information. One of the reasons
for this may be that responsibilities are split between people. For example,
highlights the fact that findings
programme staff do not collect the delivery statistics and do not know about regarding ECD support from
the finances. Underlying at least some of this is the poor quantitative skills local government cannot be
and understanding of many of the government staff.
extrapolated.
• The study included NGO respondents from only three municipalities and field
samples cannot therefore in any way be taken as representative. The variability
across municipalities (even within the same province) highlights the fact that
findings regarding ECD support from local government cannot be extrapolated.
• The research focused mostly on centre-based ECD. This was because non
centre-based activities were rare in the sites and because officials tended to
associate ‘ECD’ with preschools, crèches and educare centres. This in itself
is an important finding from the research.
• ECD practitioners who were interviewed were not always clear on the source
of the funding they received. In particular, interviewees were frequently un-
able to distinguish the source of funding for training because of the involve-
ment of multiple partners.
• ECD respondents also had difficulty providing accurate information on cen-
tres’ budgets, income and expenditure.
• Information on ECD centre funding was obtained primarily from the principal
or founder of each of the centres and did not include interviews with parent
committees which ECD centres are required to put in place in order to access
state funding and which are often signatories to the bank accounts.
Structure of this report
The section that follows (chapter 3) presents a brief overview of relevant policies
and laws governing ECD provision in South Africa. The report then goes on to de-
scribe budgeting processes and allocations relevant to ECD (chapter 4). Chapter 4
focuses on the four primary sources of funding, namely:
• the Department of Social Development
• the Department of Education
• the Expanded Public Works Programme
• the National Development Agency
The report then looks at each of these funding sources in turn (chapters 5 - 8),
reviewing knowledge of and access to funding within the three case study sites and
describing the factors that aid or inhibit fund access. Chapter 9 presents the findings
of the research with regard to support provided by local government (district and local
municipalities) to ECD services. The last chapter (chapter 10) presents conclusions
and preliminary recommendations for consideration.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
15Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
163 Overview of relevant policy
There are numerous laws, policies, white papers and plans that govern the provision of ECD services in South
Africa and that give effect to international and regional obligations to young children1. Four of the most impor-
tant of these are: (1) The White Paper on Early Childhood Development (2001); (2) the National Integrated Plan
for ECD (2005-2010), currently under review; (3) the Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005 (and corresponding regula-
tions and norms and standards); (4) The Norms and Standards for Grade R Funding (2008) in accordance with
the South African Schools Act (1996)
The Department of Education’s White ECD settings, prisons, child and youth
Paper 5 on ECD provides for the es- care centres, and places of safety. The Children’s Act (No 38 of
tablishment of a national system for 2005) defines ECD as “the
the Reception Year (Grade R) aimed The Children’s Act (No 38 of 2005) de-
at children aged 5-6 years. This paved fines ECD as “the process of emotion- process of emotional, cogni-
the way for the integration of Grade R al, cognitive, sensory, spiritual, moral, tive, sensory, spiritual, moral,
in ordinary public schools. The White physical, social and communication physical, social and com-
Paper also requires the development development of children from birth to
of a strategic plan for intersectoral school-going age”. Like the NIP, the
munication development of
collaboration and targeted services Act’s provisions for ECD focus predom- children from birth to school-
and programmes for children under 5 inantly on the 0-4 age cohort. Annex- going age”.
years “that are appropriate, inclusive ure B, Parts 1 and 2 of the regulations
and integrated”. It calls for improve- to the Children’s Act detail norms and
ments to the quality of Pre-Grade R standards for ECD facilities and pro-
• to make early childhood develop-
programmes, inclusion of health and grammes (these are discussed in more
ment programmes available to
nutrition, appropriate curricula as well detail on page 40 under Step 1: Dual
children with disabilities
as practitioner development and ca- registration with DSD). Compliance
reer pathing. with these norms and standards is a Section 92 of the Act states that the
requirement for DSD registration and National Minister for Social Develop-
The National Integrated Plan for ECD funding. There is however no obliga- ment must include in the departmen-
(2005-2010) takes forward these provi- tion on the state to fund ECD services tal strategy a comprehensive national
sions of White Paper 5. It focuses pre- that meet the prescribed requirements strategy aimed at securing a properly
dominantly on addressing the needs of of the norms - Section 93 of the Act resourced, coordinated and managed
children aged 0-4 years, “in line with the states that the MEC for social develop- early childhood development system.
international experience of targeting, in ment may, from money appropriated
this case by age, as a key mechanism by the relevant provincial legislature, Responsibility for registration and
for dealing with the challenge of scarce provide and fund early childhood de- funding of ECD services for children
resources” (p.8). The NIP extends well velopment programmes for that prov- aged 5-6 years (Grade R) lies with the
beyond centre-based ECD services, ince. The Act states further that ECD Department of Education. Norms and
calling for an integrated approach to services should be prioritised: standards for Grade R funding2 were
ECD with primary components of the • in communities where families released in 2008. In accordance with
plan located in a range of sites where lack the means of providing Education White Paper 5, the norms
children live and are cared for. These proper shelter, food and other support a pro-poor phased in approach
include homes, formal ECD centres, basic necessities of life to their “to publicly funded Grade R classes
community childcare centres, informal children across the whole public schooling sys-
1
It is beyond the scope of this report to include information on all of these documents. These are usefully summarised in a document entitled “Young Children’s Position
Paper” (2008) commissioned by the Alliance for Children’s Entitlement to Social Security (ACESS) and compiled by Karen Kallman.
2
For the South African Schools Act (84/1996), Government Gazette No. 30679.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
17tem by 2010” (this period was subse- tutions where there is a need for the licly funded programme. Registration
quently extended). While the norms piloting of new approaches or there is as an independent school therefore
focus mainly on funding of Grade R in a need to reduce the distance travelled does not guarantee state funding.
public schools, they also make provi- by poor Grade R learners between
sion for publicly funded Grade R in home and the institution” (p.18). No More detailed information on legal re-
independent schools. The norms state independent school has the right to quirements for registration and fund-
that “in accordance with the proposals receive public funding for Grade R un- ing for each government department is
of Education White Paper 5, the state less the school has been explicitly tar- included in the relevant chapters.
will fund Grade R in non-public insti- geted by the state to be part of a pub-
Summary
In summary, ECD service providers offering services to children aged 0-4 years must register their services with the De-
partment of Social Development, either only as an ECD programme (non-centre-based services), or as both a partial care
facility and an ECD programme (ECD centres).
This is a legal requirement and it is also a prerequisite for accessing state funding. However, successful registration does
not guarantee funding and there is no obligation on the MEC for Social Development to fund all registered ECD services in
a province. ECD centres offering Grade R are not legally obliged to register with the Department of Basic Education but
registration (as an independent school) is a prerequisite for accessing funding. However, as with DSD, successful registra-
tion with DoE does not guarantee funding.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
18Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
19Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
204 Budget processes and ECD allocations
This section briefly describes relevant aspects of the national and provincial budget processes.
The first point to note is the relative sta-
bility of the South African government In 2010 South Africa was rated first internationally on the Interna-
budgeting process, which discour- tional Budget Partnership’s Open Budget Index. One aspect of this
ages major shifts from year to year.
The stability is encouraged by use of a availability is that the standard budget books tabled in the national
medium-term expenditure framework and provincial legislatures provide budget estimates for a period of
(MTEF). Using this approach, each seven years.
year government agencies draw up
budget estimates for three years – the
immediate following year which will be
voted on by the various legislatures, cial budgets include three estimates – The first step in the process of provin-
and the two following “outer years” the original allocation voted on by the cial allocations is the determination
of the MTEF. The outer years are not legislature the previous year, the “ad- of how the money available at nation-
voted on and thus do not become law. justed” estimate which includes any al level will be split between the three
However they constitute the basis on additions or subtractions voted by the spheres (national, provincial and lo-
which the next year’s MTEF is built, legislature mid-year, and the “revised” cal) in what is called the vertical divi-
with the assumption that any substan- estimate, which is the relevant depart- sion of revenue.
tial deviations must be well motivated. ment’s estimate of the amount that will
The stability is good in that it allows for actually have been spent by the end of The next step is the determination of
the smooth ongoing operation of gov- the budget year. how the money within each sphere
ernment. It can, however, encourage will be split between the entities in
continuation of less necessary expen- The overwhelming bulk of ECD-related that sphere, that is between the prov-
ditures and make it difficult to increase budget allocations are made at pro- inces or municipalities.
funds for new areas or those that have vincial level by the provincial DSD and
become more important. DoE. Within both local and provincial
spheres, this is done primarily through
A related point is the relative avail- The first step in the overall budg- formulae that determine the “equitable
ability of government budget informa- et allocation process (covering all share” of each entity. In the case of the
tion in South Africa when compared to spheres of government) is the Na- provincial sphere, the variable with the
other countries. Indeed, in 2010 South tional Treasury’s determination of largest weight in the formula relates to
Africa was rated first internationally on how much revenue will be available education. The equitable share formu-
the International Budget Partnership’s and what level of deficit (excess of la does not include a variable related
Open Budget Index. One aspect of this spending over revenue) or surplus to social development and welfare. In-
availability is that the standard budget (revenue exceeds surplus) should stead, the poverty variable is meant to
books tabled in the national and pro- be targeted. cater for this aspect of service delivery.
vincial legislatures provide budget esti- In addition to their equitable share,
mates for a period of seven years. This In cases where revenue is growing each province will receive a range of
includes the three years preceding the more than expected, there will then conditional grants from various na-
“current” budget year (which is the fi- be more room for maneuver and tional departments that must be used
nancial year that is coming to an end “new” expenditure in the budgeting for pre-specified purposes. The equi-
when the budget for the next year is ta- process. In cases where revenue is table share comes in a single “pot” of
bled in parliament), the current budget less than expected, National Treas- money for each province, and it is up
year, and the three years of the MTEF. ury will want government agencies to to the province to decide how to allo-
In respect of the current year, provin- propose cuts. cate it between different departments.
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
21The province is not obliged to follow
the formula. In contrast, conditional It is against this background that the issue of budget “bids” arises.
grants must be spent on the purpose If additional funds are wanted for a particular activity such as ECD,
for which they are allocated.
a strong “bid” needs to be made by the relevant directorate, with a
The third step is therefore the deter- subsequent strong “bid” by the department to the provincial treasury.
mination by each province of how the
available funds will be divided between
the departments so as to stay within
the “ceiling” for each province i.e. the using the standard formula, there is a Sources of ECD funding
total amount of money available. strong expectation, but no compulsion,
that the provincial treasuries will allocate
Within a department a budget is drawn the extra money for the purpose speci- National and provincial fund-
up by or for each directorate and sub- fied in the national bid (and repeated in ing of ECD by Department of
directorate, and these budgets are ag- the provincial bids). Successful national Social Development
gregated at departmental level. Within bids of this sort resulted in additions to
each department the chief financial of- the equitable share for ECD for 2007, There are two main ways in which ECD
ficer needs to ensure that all the com- 2008 and 2009. Similar bids were not can be funded by provincial DSD:
ponent allocations are within the budg- successful in the subsequent two years.
et ceiling specified for the department • The per child per day subsidy for
by the provincial treasury. Throughout The successful bids of 2007-2009 re- registered ECD centres in respect
these processes there will be a strong sulted in a total of approximately R2,4 of children aged 0-4 years whose
tendency to allocate in a similar way to billion being added to the baseline (the caregivers pass the income
how it was done in the previous year. previous year’s MTEF estimates) across means test.
Not doing so would usually mean that the nine provinces. This amount was in- • “Programme” funding for NPOs
some staff’s jobs would be on the line tended to provide for subsidisation of 1 in respect of ECD programmes,
and/or some activities cut. million children in ECD centres and was for which organisations must
thus most likely to be allocated to the typically apply using the general
It is against this background that the provincial DSDs. In addition, a further NPO funding application forms.
issue of budget “bids” arises. If addi- R722 million was added in respect of The applications could include
tional funds are wanted for a particular training of practitioners for the 0-4 age funding for activities such as
activity such as ECD, a strong “bid” groups. This money was likely to be al- training and other support, or
needs to be made by the relevant direc- located to the provincial DoEs. for home-and-community-based
torate, with a subsequent strong “bid” ECD. The types of expenditure
by the department to the provincial Several reasons were advanced why to be subsidised would include
treasury if the bid cannot be accommo- further additional monies were not ECD practitioner stipends, train-
dated within the ceiling. If national and added to the equitable share in respect ing, travel, venue, catering and
provincial agree that there is a priority of ECD after 2009. These included: management/supervision costs.
that is common across provinces, a fur- • The overall tightness in the (Budlender, 2010a; 2010b).
ther possibility is a national bid. Where budget in the face of the global
a priority has been spelt out at national financial and economic crisis Tracking ECD budget allocations
level, for example in the APEX priorities, within DSD
• A strong focus on education and
the National Treasury may request a bid
health
from a sector. In these cases the rel- It is difficult to track the exact amounts
evant national department draws up a • The fact that the bid went through allocated for ECD within DSD budg-
bid that brings together information and the Expanded Public Works ets. It is especially difficult in respect
estimated costs across all provinces. If Programme (EPWP) rather than of non-centre-based budgets, but also
the bid is successful in achieving addi- going directly from national DSD difficult in respect of the centre subsi-
tional funds through a conditional grant, • The lack of a clearly focused bid dies which account for the bulk of the
the extra money received by provinces for ECD ECD funding.
must be spent on the specified issue. If (The issue of EPWP funding is dis-
the bid is successful and the money is cussed in more detail below.) Orgill (2010) quotes Biersteker’s ob-
channelled through the equitable share servation that ECD subsidy budgets
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
22more than doubled from R422 mil- budget format does not specify a
lion in 2007/08 to R900 million in budget line item for ECD, it is possible The overwhelming bulk of
2008/09. For this research a national to identify some ECD allocations in the the funding for ECD – all
official reported that the total subsidy tables that some provinces provide
amount had increased from just under
the centre-based subsidies
detailing transfers to NPOs. Unfortu-
R335 million in 2003/04 to more than nately this is again done in different and most of the non-centre-
a billion rand in 2011/12. This is a sub- ways across the provinces. Further, based funding where it exists
stantial increase given the fact that the some provinces do not include any – falls under the Child Care
general trend is for allocations for spe- tables detailing transfers while some
cific activities to increase only in line that provide tables do not disaggre- and Protection Services Sub-
with inflation. gate in a way that allows identification Programme. Unfortunately
of ECD. there is no standard line item
Across provinces the social welfare
for ECD within this sub-pro-
budget programme is composed Table 2 shows the transfers that can
of more or less standard sub-pro- be identified as ECD-related in the gramme.
grammes. The overwhelming bulk of 2011 provincial budget books. Unfor-
the funding for ECD – all the centre- tunately amoung our target provinces
based subsidies and most of the non- there is only information for the East-
centre-based funding where it ex- ern Cape. Mpumalanga is not includ-
ists – falls under the Child Care and ed in the table as it lists each of the
Protection Services Sub-Programme. beneficiary organisations, of whom
Unfortunately there is no standard about 100 appear to be crèches or
line item for ECD within this sub-pro- ECD centres.
gramme. Nevertheless, over the last
five years ECD is probably the most Looking beyond the tabled budget
well reported service within the narra- books, Orgill (2010) obtained informa-
tive parts of DSD’s vote. The mentions tion from officials in the Western Cape
include some performance indicators and the Eastern Cape on ECD alloca-
and indications of allocations along- tions. The data relate to earlier years
side affirmations of the importance of but are nevertheless useful given the
ECD. Unfortunately, however, the way relative lack of more recent budget in-
ECD is reported differs across prov- formation. The data also illustrate the
inces and across years. The annual extent to which the two provinces have
analysis by Budlender and Proudlock allocated funds for ECD beyond the
(2008, 2009, 2010) highlights these additional bid-related amounts includ-
differences. ed in the provincial equitable shares
for this purpose, which are referred to
While the standard provincial DSD by Orgill as the “EPWP budget”.
Table 2. ECD-related transfers in 2011 budget books (R000s)
2007/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
EC ECD 615 134876 136715 144234
FS Places of care (ECD) 40452 85611 126684 148199 172260 177920 182633
FS Educare Regional Training 259 273 273 302 332 349 368
FS Children-EPWP-ECD 2310 2406 10067 3879 4265 4478 4724
KZN ECD 95681 111188 110951 168001 274391 289385 305841
NC Expansion of ECDs 23892 25240 26533 31309 36051 37017 39142
NC Projects Expansion of ECDs 2550 17432 19107 19754
NC Projects Expansion of ECDs 730 739 780
Government funding for early childhood development: Can those who need it get it?
23You can also read
