Registration

1.introcfuction

4.2. The main findings of the study

4.2.6. Registration

The process of registration of child care facilities and its challenges has been discussed in detail in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2, respectively of this document. At the time

of

^the -interviews, registration of facilities was one of the biggest challenges for the facilities as it was beyond the control of facilitators and it affected possible funding. All the facilities included in the study had more than six children enrolled and should thus have been registered in terms of Section 30 of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983. A significant finding of this study is that none of the facilities were registered. This omission points to gaps in the registration process, which is complicated and intimidating for facilitators.

Facilitators from formal facilities knew about registration, probably because they were in the process of application. However, the lack of communication with the departments doing the registration made it difficult for them to be clear and informed about the stages they should go through. They were not sure which department they should get feedback from. While the department of Social Welfare and Development and the municipality might have had genuine reasons for the delays, lack of communication with the facilitators made it a frustrating and uncertain process for the facilitators.

The feeling of facilitators from Category B informal facilities was that of being left out and not fully supported. As one facilitator mentioned, the requirements of the registration were difficult for her to meet. Facilitators felt that the government pays attention only to the big creches.

The findings of the study show clearly that there is no synergy between the micro, meso, exoand macro systems.

4.2.7. Staffing

The results showed that Category A informal facilities have mostly one person looking after the children. The highest ratio of teacher/child minder in this

category

is f2:i.ForCategory

B

facilities the highest ratio is 17:1 and for formal facilities the highest ratio is25:1. The ratios exclude the other staff members who are usually the cook, security officer or a family member in the case of informal facilities. The ratios, particularly for the formal facilities are higher than those found across ECD sites in the province of KwaZulu-Natal. The ratio of practitioners and child minders to learners in the province is20:1 (White Paper 5 on Early Childhood Development,2001).

The children in the informal facilities are better resourced in this category than the children in formal facilities. An inference can be drawn that children in informal facilities get more attention. This could also be the reason why parents particularly choose the informal facilities for their newborn babies, even though formal facilities provide services for them as well. Informal Category A facilities are a particularly neglected group, yet they provide an important service.

4.2.8. Training

TREE provides the most training for the facilitators. The training is provided for all facilities, with the exception of Category A informal facilities, who receive no services and therefore no training. The fact that TREE does its own fundraising for the training of facilitators makes the training accessible and facilities take advantage of this.

4.2.9. Salaries and fees structures

Salaries were not discussed at length. However, facilitators from Category B informal facilities and formal facilities mentioned that they sometimes did not havea salaryafter

buVing

fOGa for·t11e·"d ' ild·ren from"

the

feesancf-payi~gth~

salaries for the rest of the staff. The feeling of facilitators was that food used up most of the money and the facilitators had to pay salaries to the staff and they only got paid if there was any money left. This is because facilitators had a sense of responsibility as persons who 'employed' the other staff.

Fees charged were not significantly different at the facilities and were not guaranteed. Most facilitators reported that parents pay fees erratically and this led to poor running of the facilities, for example, buying of good quality food, equipment, learning materials as well as paying of salaries. Facilitators still had to pay salaries for months like January, November and December while attendance dropped and payment of fees also dropped.

4.2.10. Vulnerable Children and Children with Disabilities

Only one facility in this study had a child with a physical disability. This leaves the question of where the children with physical disabilities are. Could children with disabilities be in special schools or are disabled children hidden indoors in the community?

Another concern was that of orphaned children. Statistics of children being orphaned by the effects of HIV/AIDS in South Africa have been reported to be very high. The estimated number of children who have lost one or both parents to ,i\lp§ was§'§.Q.9QQ.in 2001,.(South African.E pidemiological Fact Sheet, 2002 as cited in Barolsky 2003:10). The province of KwaZulu Natal is well documented as the province with high rates of HIV prevalence. Yet, during the interviews, only one facility mentioned children who were known to be in the care of

grandparents. The only other mention of children being cared for by grandparents was reference to children who dropped out and the facilitators would sometimes find out later that the children were sent to the rural areas.

There was no information on those children in terms of figures. The concern is

whether ' these-

^{courd-bethe --chTidren} -vuinerable -toa~d- affe~t~d··-by--Hiv/AIDS.

If-

this is the case, no one is documenting this. The long term effects of apartheid and the lack of service provision in rural areas is a well known factor in South Africa. It is therefore likely that the children sent to grandparents in the rural areas do not necessarily get services. Questions need to be asked about these children and what really happens to them.