Many early childhood development (ECD) centres in South Africa are in poor physical condition, and current legislation prevents public funds from being used to improve privately owned facilities, even though most ECD centres are privately owned. As a result, many centres struggle to meet basic standards.
Centres run from private homes are excluded from municipal infrastructure upgrades, while those in informal settlements cannot be upgraded through official channels because the land is ostensibly illegally occupied. At the same time, low fees and limited access to subsidies mean that owners cannot afford to make improvements themselves.
A peer-reviewed 2021 study by Dr Siphe Madyibi and Professor Amiena Bayat at the University of the Western Cape assesses the state of physical infrastructure in ECD facilities and the impact of ECD legislation on this infrastructure in the low-income township of Philippi.
It posed the following questions:
- How and why does infrastructure differ between registered and unregistered facilities in Philippi?
- To what extent does ECD legislation in the country determine the state of the current ECD infrastructure?
- How does the state of the infrastructure in Philippi influence children’s early learning experience?
What the Philippi study looks at
The study assessed the physical infrastructure of 20 ECD facilities in Philippi – 10 registered and 10 unregistered. In the study sample, all registered facilities were in “mostly formal” housing areas, and none were in “mostly informal” areas.
Among unregistered facilities, 60% were in “mostly formal” areas and 40% in “mostly informal” areas. The authors interpret this as indicating that, in this study sample, it is extremely unlikely for a facility in a mostly informal area to achieve registration.
Differences in the type of buildings used
The study also reported differences in the kinds of buildings used as facilities. In the sample, 70% of registered facilities operated from a formal residential house (not a separate building), and 30% operated from a formal separate house/building.
Unregistered facilities were more varied: 30% were formal residential houses, 30% were formal separate buildings, 20% were informal buildings separate from a residence, and 20% were informal buildings that were not separate from a residence (ie, the residence doubles as the facility).
Registration, compliance, and “policy contradiction”
ECD registration requires compliance with the norms and standards set out in the Children’s Act, as well as with municipal bylaws governing building, structural safety, and health. It describes building-related prerequisites, including rezoning, approved building plans, and compliance with national building regulations – requirements that are difficult for many facilities in poor communities to meet.
The authors describe what they frame as a contradiction in the legal and regulatory environment: although legislation is intended to support children’s development, it also criminalises non-registration and requires compliance steps that are “daunting” and beyond the resources of many centres.
Crucially, the paper states that infrastructure shortfalls are fuelled by legislation and fiscal constraints that prohibit the use of public finance to upgrade privately owned ECD facilities, and it links this to the persistence of inadequate infrastructure in facilities serving lower-income communities.
The paper’s analysis points to three key conclusions:
- The current funding model is untenable. The paper argues that prohibiting public investment in privately owned ECD infrastructure effectively denies children access to adequate early learning environments, framing this as a structural failure of the system.
- Compliance requirements warrant reconsideration. Drawing on the existing literature, the authors note that, in the absence of state assistance, rigid compliance requirements may need to be reconsidered to enable communities to provide services within their means.
- Responsibility cannot rest with communities alone. While acknowledging community initiative, the paper makes clear that expecting poor communities to self-finance infrastructure entrenches inequality rather than addressing it.
