Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable - Unicef

Department of Social Development
Second, insufficient funds at a provincial level has not allowed for the scaling up of ECD
services and programmes as envisaged by the expanded public works ECD (EPWP ECD)
programme and the NIP for ECD, especially in poor and vulnerable communities. Scaling
up of ECD 0–4 has been given a low priority status in provinces in terms of the budget
allocated to it (less than 1 per cent of the provincial equitable shares were allocated to
scale up ECD in 2007/08) (Streak & Norushe 2008: 13). Funds from the equitable share
to provinces that may have been intended for ECD scaling up are often diverted by
provinces to other programmes because the funds are not ring-fenced for this specific
purpose before being allocated to provinces. The lack of funding has limited the growth
in the number of ECD centres and programmes in vulnerable communities, as envisaged
by the EPWP ECD plan and the NIP for ECD. In addition, it has limited the improvement
of infrastructure and an increase in trained ECD staff at centres (Streak 2005).
The slow pace of expanding the reach of registered centres into poor areas is further
inhibited by the poor state of infrastructure, programme and human capacity in the
majority of unregistered ECD centres in poor communities. The registration process for
these centres is inefficient, cumbersome and difficult to navigate. Not only is it difficult
for poorly resourced centres in vulnerable communities to navigate the registration
process, it is also costly for them to comply with the statutory requirements prescribed
as a prerequisite for registration. This obstacle is recognised by the Children’s Act, which
introduces a conditional registration process to help struggling community-based projects
to register as ECD centres (Proudlock & Jamieson 2008).
Third, poverty excludes many vulnerable children from benefiting from ECD services
and programmes. Children living in poverty remain at risk of not accessing ECD centres,
given the fact that most centres charge fees and very few exempt poor children from
the relevant fee obligation. A study conducted by the Department of Economics at
Stellenbosch University on behalf of UNICEF and the departments of Education and
Social Development found that almost all centres that participated in their study charged
fees and at least two-thirds did not grant fee exemptions. At the same time, many of
the centres received subsidies from the DoSD for children who qualified in terms of the
means test. The latter observation tends to show that the subsidy model adopted by the
DoSD does not make ECD more affordable or accessible for the individual child to which
the subsidy is linked. The report notes that the subsidy improves the financial situation of
the facility as a whole and this may in turn lead to lower fees which benefit all children
equally (Van der Berg et al. 2010).
The reach of the per-child ECD subsidy is poor. Only 10 per cent of eligible poor children
nationally receive an ECD subsidy. 43 In addition, there is variation across the provinces in
the value of the subsidy provided. There is not only variation in the sum of the subsidy, but
also in the means test that is applied between provinces. The application of the means test
by officials results in exclusions of qualifying beneficiaries because the means test is poorly
understood by departmental staff and difficult to implement (Streak & Norushe 2008).
Fourth, there is insufficient funding and support for home- and community-based ECD
services and programmes. The NIP for ECD has what Budlender refers to as a ‘poverty
sub-programme aimed at delivering integrated services to 2,5 million to 3 million children
43 Taken from Streak & Norushe (2008), based on calculations by Budlender (2010) using the 2005 General Household
Survey, defining poor children as those living in a household with a monthly expenditure of R1 200 or less
71