Abstract
Background: In South Africa, the Department of Basic Education removed the non-profit organisation (NPO) registration mandate for early childhood development (ECD) programmes. The aim was to alleviate administrative burdens. If the messaging is not received correctly, it could lead to the inaccurate belief that all programmes are subsidy-eligible without any formal registration, potentially risking the quality and sustainability of ECD services.
Aim: This study investigated the determinants influencing the decision of ECD centres to register as NPOs prior to the NPO registration mandate.
Setting: A nationwide ECD census was conducted in all nine South African provinces.
Methods: Data from 39 176 centres were analysed quantitatively to investigate the association between ECD centre registration as an NPO and various independent variables.
Results: The findings show that 68.34% of ECD centres were registered as NPOs. The odds ratio (OR) of receiving a subsidy (OR 10.17; 7.82–13.22), having a bank account (OR 4.20; CI 3.01–5.72) and the ECD programme being part of a wider network (OR 1.81; CI 1.46–2.26) were strong predictors of ECD NPO registration.
Conclusion: Subsidies matter in encouraging ECD centres to formalise their operations. ECDs that are part of wider networks have an opportunity to access resources, information and support that can enhance operational effectiveness.
Contribution: The study provides empirical evidence to guide policy decisions and resource allocation, which can potentially lead to improved service quality and access to resources for children and families to support the growth and sustainability of the ECD sector in South Africa.
Keywords: early childhood development; non-profit organisations; NPO registration; Department of Social Development; Department of Basic Education; South Africa.
Introduction
Early childhood development (ECD) is an important component of a child’s life, as it is seen as a window of opportunity that prepares children to be competent and flourish later in their lives (Ashley-Cooper, Van Niekerk & Atmore 2019a). Early childhood development centres lay a foundation for children’s growth, early learning, and future development, yet in South Africa, access to quality ECD services remains unequal (Ronaasen 2021). Non-profit organisations (NPOs) play an important role in providing these services, but the factors influencing their formal registration remain poorly understood. According to the Children’s Act 38 of 2005, ECD centres are facilities that provide regular care and support to children outside of their homes (Republic of South Africa 2005). They offer a nurturing environment where caregiving is provided externally, often by non-familial caregivers. These caregivers provide children with opportunities for growth and development (Department of Social Development [DSD] 2006; Sargsyan et al. 2023; UNICEF, WHO & The World Bank 2018). Early childhood development centres offer partial care and dedicated spaces where children can engage in play-based learning experiences that support their physical, cognitive, social, emotional, and spiritual development (DSD 2006; Madyibi & Bayat 2021).
Non-profit organisations in South Africa are rapidly increasing in number, with 280 329 registered NPOs. According to the DSD, the NPOs play a crucial role in delivering welfare services to the most vulnerable children on behalf of the government and thus should ensure that best practices are met (DSD 2024). Early childhood development centres play a critical role in providing important services to disadvantaged communities. However, in South Africa, the ECD sector experiences significant resource constraints, characterised by persistently low levels of budgetary investment (Atmore, Van Niekerk & Ashley-Cooper 2012; Sello et al. 2024; Wills & Kika Mistry 2023). The ECD sector, as mentioned by Wills and Kika-Mistry (2023), is a ‘quasi-market’, characterised by registered and non-registered ECD centres. The registered centres are often NPOs which may benefit from subsidies that are means-tested for children who are recipients of social grants. Until recently, the ECD subsidy grant was R17 per child, which was increased in March 2025 to R24 a child per day (Parliamentary Communication Services 2025; Sello et al. 2024). Recent developments in the ECD sector in South Africa have seen a transition of the ECD role from the DSD to the DBE. This shift has brought about uncertainty in the ECD sector, bringing questions of sustainability of ECD centres as well as stability in subsidies, thus questioning how nurturing and care of children will be delivered (Matlala & Molokwane 2024; Karisa et al. 2022).
Literature review
Historical and policy context
The ECD sector was historically located within the DSD sector. The Department of Social Development oversaw ensuring registration compliance and funding to registered ECD programmes through subsidies. Section 93(1) of the Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005 (Republic of South Africa 2005) required that all ECD centres register with the DSD to operate legally and to become eligible to receive the ECD subsidy, which supports children in vulnerable communities. Additionally, this Act ensured that the minimum standards of care and safety are adhered to by ECD centres (Republic of South Africa 2005). Although it was a legal requirement for ECD centres to register in order to comply, ECD centres were also encouraged to register with the DSD to access nutrition support, funding for infrastructure and public funding (Aina & Bipath 2022; Biersteker et al. 2016). Moreover, under the NPO Act (No. 71 of 1997), ECD centres needed to register as NPOs to qualify for DSD subsidies (Republic of South Africa 1997). This additional requirement introduced another layer to the registration process, which this study explores in detail.
In South Africa, the migration of the ECD responsibility from the DSD to the DBE means that the DBE has now taken over the registration process, certification, funding and training of ECD centres (DBE 2023a). Additionally, this change comes with more responsibility for the DBE to manage the early learning pathways for children in ECD centres. This shift has fundamentally altered the operational and policy landscape of ECD provision (Matlala & Molokwane 2024). Additionally, as of 23 January 2023, the DBE removed the NPO registration requirement for ECD centres (DBE 2023a). For some, this transition has long been anticipated, providing the government with an opportunity to reassess eligibility requirements and access to subsidies (Burger et al. 2022). Studies have highlighted the barriers to ECD centre registration in the country, with reasons cited such as costly and onerous registration requirements, thus affecting children’s nutritional and ECD outcomes, particularly in resource-poor communities (Burger et al. 2022; Matlala & Molokwane 2024; Selllo et al. 2024). Despite this policy shift, the Children’s Act of 2005 remains in effect, although there have been later amendments leading to the Children’s Amendment Act 17 of 2022 and the Children’s Amendment Bill B18-2020. The implication is that ECD registration continues to be a legal requirement. However, there are continued efforts from the DBE to develop side-by-side systems to ensure quality improvements among ECD centres and the promotion of ECD programme registration (Biersteker & Dowdall 2024; Genesis Analytics 2025; Republic of South Africa 2015). Despite the existence of progressive policies, such as the Integrated ECD Policy, many ECD centres in South Africa continue to face challenges with registering their ECD centres because of gaps in policy implementation and systemic inequalities (Atmore et al. 2012; Matlala & Molokwane 2024; Selloe et al. 2024). Another recent policy shift was the decision made by the DBE to no longer require the NPO registration status as a mandatory requirement for ECD centres to be eligible for subsidies (DBE 2023a). This shift raises critical questions about the implications of centre non-registrations as NPOs on service delivery, child safety, and educational outcomes. It is acknowledged that the DBE’s decision to withdraw the mandatory NPO status of NPO registration could have been driven by intended benefits such as simplifying the registration process for ECD centres in vulnerable communities; however, this shift necessitates a careful examination of its potential challenges. For example, this shift gives the impression that all ECD programmes can access subsidies without any registration, which is misleading. Furthermore, it may cause confusion, misinterpretations and assumptions that no form of registration or compliance is necessary, which could lead ECD practitioners to operate illegally and jeopardise their access to future funding. While evidence of the challenges facing South Africa’s ECD sector has been well documented (Ashley-Cooper et al. 2019; Atmore et al. 2012; Sello et al. 2024), there is a paucity of comprehensive and data-driven analysis of the factors influencing the decision of ECD centres to register as NPOs. This study aims to address a critical knowledge gap by understanding the determinants of NPO registration among ECD centres in South Africa. This study is unique in the sense that it uses a theory-driven, quantitative approach – drawing on resource dependence theory and institutional theory to identify the key determinants of NPO registration among ECD centres. There is little understanding of how resource dependence and institutional pressures interact to influence ECD centres’ decision to register as NPOs (DBE 2023a). This gap encompasses several key areas: Firstly, the perceived benefits of NPO registration for ECD centres remain poorly understood. Secondly, the challenges and barriers encountered during the NPO registration process require further investigation. Finally, the interplay between the current regulatory framework for ECD centres (including infrastructure, staffing, and compliance requirements) and the decision to register as an NPO needs clarification. By identifying these determinants, the study sought to provide evidence-based insights that can inform inclusive policy and practice, ultimately improving opportunities for children to attend quality ECD centres in South Africa.
Theoretical background
From a theoretical point of view and to better understand the determinants of non-profit registration among ECD centres in South Africa, this study draws on the combination of the institutional theory and the Resource Dependence theoretical frameworks (DiMaggio & Powell 1983; Pfeffer & Salancik 1978). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) establish a relationship between organisational institutional environments and the pressures to conform with the norms, rules and expectations in the sector. In the context of understanding ECD NPO registrations, some ECD centres need substantial support in the form of financial resources from external sources. Therefore, this need results in ECD centres going all out to conform with the societal norms and expectations of formal registration despite the lengthy registration process. This need and pressure are associated with the potential benefits of being a registered centre, including donor funding and government subsidies (IPASA 2022; Wills & Kika Mistry 2023). Therefore, this factor drives their motivation to register as NPOs so they can be legitimised (Sello et al. 2024). Additionally, there is a normative expectation for ECD centres that are part of network groups such as development agencies and ECD forums to be registered (Blom 2019). The desire to be part of a recognised network may lead unregistered ECD centres to respond to institutional pressures by imitating registered centres, which are often perceived as more successful and as beneficiaries of the advantages associated with formal registration. In this light, Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978) resource dependence theory helps us understand that some ECD centres may not be self-sufficient. To ensure survival and success, ECD centres may strategically respond to their external environments based on access to, and dependence on, critical resources such as government subsidies, donor funding, training opportunities, and infrastructure support. ECD centres that depend to a great extent on outside help may see registration as necessary to keep operating (Aina & Bipath 2022). On the contrary, Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978) theory can help us understand that ECD centres that have other forms of support might see registration as requiring excessive paperwork that is not needed. This study uses the two theoretical frameworks to indicate the push and pull factors that influence ECD NPO registration and non-registration. In using both theories, the balance between following the rules and making independent choices may be better understood. Figure 1 illustrates the author’s proposed conception of the factors that influence ECD centre NPO registration status, drawing on the resource dependence theory and institutional theory. The model shows that centres with greater access to external resources, such as government subsidies, qualified staff, funding mechanisms like bank accounts, and participation in networks, are more likely to pursue NPO registration to secure and maintain these resources. At the same time, the framework also highlights how centres respond to regulatory pressures, such as compliance with infrastructure standards, DSD registration requirements, and ECD sector expectations. Together, these external and internal pressures shape the likelihood of ECD centres registering as NPOs.
 |
FIGURE 1: Conceptual framework showing the relationship between resource-based and institutional determinants of Early Childhood Development Centre Non-Profit Organisations’ registration status. |
|
Research methods and design
This study used data from the ECD census conducted in August 2021 and February 2022 (DBE 2022). Data were collected in all nine of South Africa’s provinces. Specifically, an instrument based on knowledge of the ECD programme was administered to the ECD programme manager or someone with in-depth knowledge of the centre. Data were collected cross-sectionally and covered information on the ECD’s centre location, registration status, address, opening times, services offered, facility and land ownership, number of children and number of staff, access to resources including play materials, space, kitchen, security, access control and equipment.
Research instrument and data collection methods
Data were collected through face-to-face visits on site by field workers using two instruments between August 2021 and February 2022 (DBE 2022). The first instrument was a questionnaire, administered to the ECD programme manager or someone who was knowledgeable about the day-to-day running of the ECD centre. The interview questionnaire was translated into the local languages spoken in the area where the data were collected. The second instrument used was an observation tool. The observation tool was used by the field worker to document the observations made during the field visit, such as the infrastructure quality, number of practitioners, and children present on the day of the interview. The research instruments were developed by Ikapadata, the Lego Foundation and the Department of Basic Education (DBE 2022). Data were collected according to wards. To gain support from the community, ward councillors were approached to assist with community mobilisation regarding the study. This approach assisted in ensuring minimal hindrances in the data collection processes. The data collection was followed by a census approach, where all ECD programmes that were identified from the Vangasali dataset were captured if physically located on the ground.
Sample design
The ECD census was conducted in all nine provinces in the country, and a total of 42 420 Early Learning Programmes (ELPs) were captured, with 1.6 million children counted in ELPs.
Study population and inclusion criteria
The study was based on ECD centres that were enrolled during the ECD census. For this study, the sample analysed was 39 176 centres of the 42 420 ECD centres enrolled in the ECD census. The selection criteria of the 39 176 centres were based on whether the respondent answered the question on the NPO registration status of the ECD. Centres that did not respond to the question on NPO registration were excluded from the analysis.
Variable management
Outcome variable
The dependent variable of interest was NPO registration. Specifically, respondents were asked, ‘Is the Programme registered as an NPO?’ This outcome variable was operationalised into two categories: 0 ‘not registered’ and 1 ‘registered’.
Independent variables
The independent variables in the study were selected based on their relevance in previous studies as factors influencing ECD registration status in South Africa (Ashley-Cooper et al. 2019; Atmore et al. 2012; Sello et al. 2024). Table 1 presents the operational definitions of the variables used to examine the determinants of NPO registration status among ECD centres. The selection of these variables was informed not only by the existing literature but also guided by institutional theory and resource dependence theory, which provided the theoretical foundation for understanding the factors influencing registration decisions.
| TABLE 1: Independent variables used to model the determinants of non-profit organisation registration status among early childhood development centres in South Africa. |
Statistical analysis
In this study, data on ECD’s NPO registration were analysed at univariate, bivariate and multivariate levels. The first-level analysis included descriptive statistics using the ECD census data. At the second level, the Chi-square test of association was used to understand the relationship between the ECD NPO registration status and the independent variable. Finally, at the third level, the multivariate binary logistic regression was used to model independent variables to predict the likelihood of NPO registration among ECD centres. This analysis focused on determining the factors associated with NPO registration among ECD centres. We also ran the variance inflation factor (VIF) to assess whether there were any issues of multicollinearity among independent variables. All independent variables had a VIF of less than five, suggesting no multicollinearity.
Ethical considerations
This study represented a secondary analysis of the ECD census dataset. Field workers in the ECD census had requested permission from participants. They obtained written consent from ECD managers or anyone with thorough knowledge of the ECD centre. The ECD census was a mandate from the South African Government; therefore, no ethical clearance was required because collecting data on early learning was the purview of the South African government.
Results
Figure 2 depicts the status of ECD centres that were registered as NPOs in South Africa. The majority (68.34%) of ECD centres were registered as NPOs, and only a small number (31.66%) were not registered as NPOs.
 |
FIGURE 2: Non-profit organisation registration status of early childhood development centres (ECD census 2021). |
|
Table 2 presents key characteristics of ECD centres in South Africa. The majority of ECD centres (94.17%) operate independently and are not located on the premises of a primary school. Early childhood development centres exhibit a relatively even distribution across different capacity levels, with approximately 30%–35% falling within each of the three capacity ranges (1–20, 20–40, and 41+ children). The highest proportion of centres (36.96%) employ 3–4 staff members. Fees are the primary source of funding for the majority of ECD centres (68.99%), while government subsidies contribute to 27.12% of funding. Other sources, such as donations, play a minor role. Privately owned centres are the most common (52.15%), followed by those operating from community centres (11.16%), schools/religious institutions (12.02%), and other locations. A minority of ECD centres (23.52%) provide aftercare services.
| TABLE 2: Early childhood development centre characteristics (ECD census 2021). |
Figure 3 presents key operational characteristics of ECD centres in South Africa. A significant majority (74.97%) of centres have a bank account, while the vast majority (93.7%) charge fees. Notably, 62.03% of centres offer some form of school fees exemption. A slight majority (52.19%) remain open during school holidays. A significant minority (32.93%) are recipients of the DSD subsidies for vulnerable children. Network participation is relatively low, with only 30.91% of centres connected to a wider network. Importantly, a high proportion (87.88%) of centres have separate classes for different age groups.
 |
FIGURE 3: Early childhood development centres’ operational effectiveness in South Africa (ECD census 2021). |
|
Figure 4 shows the training and qualifications among staff in ECD centres. A significant proportion (47.71%) of ECD staff have completed some form of accredited skills programme. The majority (73.49%) of staff hold an National Qualifications Framework (NQF) Level 4–5 qualification, while 19.39% of staff possess higher-level qualifications (NQF 6–9). While a majority (60.88%) of staff have received first aid training, a considerable proportion (39.12%) have not.
 |
FIGURE 4: Qualifications and training of staff in early childhood development centres (ECD census 2021). |
|
Table 3 shows that registration with DSD among ECD centres was significantly more likely to be registered as NPOs (90.29% vs. 51.41% for not registered). Early childhood development centres with mid-sized capacities < 100 children tend to have higher NPO registration rates compared to smaller centres. The presence of a fence, a lockable gate, and separate toilets for staff and children are all significantly associated with higher NPO registration rates. Centres with separate cooking areas and larger indoor play spaces tend to have higher NPO registration rates. Centres with separate toilets for staff and children have significantly higher NPO registration rates (71.64% vs. 61.51%). This finding suggests that ECD centres with better physical infrastructure may be more likely to prioritise formalisation. Furthermore, registered NPOs are more likely to adhere to specific standards and regulations related to space and hygiene, highlighting the importance of basic sanitation and hygiene standards in the registration process.
| TABLE 3: Association between institutional and contextual factors and Early Childhood Development Centre Non-Profit Organisation registration (ECD census 2021). |
Table 4 shows that ECD centres receiving subsidies from the DSD were significantly more likely to be registered as NPOs, with the odds ratio (OR) of 10.17. Early childhood development centres with bank accounts are 4.20 times more likely to be registered as NPOs in comparison to centres that do not have bank accounts. Being part of a wider network (e.g., community organisations, NGOs) increases the odds of NPO registration by 82%. Centres that allow attendance without fee payment were 49% more likely to be registered as NPOs. Early childhood development centres with staff holding NQF Level 4–5 qualifications were 1.35 times more likely to be registered as NPOs. Therefore, the most influential determinants of NPO registration among ECD centres include access to a bank account, charging of school fees, provision for fee exemptions, receiving subsidies from the DSD, operating during school holidays, participation in broader ECD networks, and staff training in first aid.
| TABLE 4: Factors associated with non-profit organisation registration in early childhood development centres (ECD census 2021). |
Discussion
The study sought to explore the determinants influencing NPO registration among ECD centres in South Africa. Our study findings show that the majority (68.34%) of ECD centres in South Africa were registered as NPOs, suggesting a considerable inclination towards formalisation. Although the ECD sector in South Africa has received increasing policy attention, existing studies have largely focused on the challenges of service delivery, infrastructure, ECD quality, and funding access, but few have systematically examined the organisational, infrastructural, and contextual determinants that shape ECD centres’ decisions to register as NPOs (Ashley-Cooper et al. 2019a; Atmore et al. 2012; Sello et al. 2024). Our findings on NPO registration align with broader trends in the South African ECD sector, where formal registration of ECD centres is increasingly pursued to access state funding and support services (Atmore et al. 2012). The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the determinants of NPO registration among ECD centres in South Africa (2).
Our findings show that of the ECD centres that were registered as NPOs, 90.29% were registered with the DSD. This finding reflects the regulatory framework in South Africa, where NPO registration was a prerequisite for receiving state subsidies and other support (Republic of South Africa, Children’s Act No. 38 of 2005). This finding aligns with Pfeffer and Salancik’s (1978) resource dependence theory, which argues that organisations depend on external sources to survive and will act in a manner that ensures access to those resources. In addition to this, Richter et al. (2012) argue that compliance with administrative requirements such as NPO registration is often necessary for legitimacy and access to resources within the ECD sector. Our findings show that ECD centres that were recipients of the DSD subsidy had 10 times the odds of being registered as NPOs compared to the centres that did not receive any government subsidy. In South Africa, evidence from previous studies suggests that the government subsidy has yielded improved nutritional outcomes for children in the ECD centres (Mistry & Wills 2023; Sello et al. 2023a; Wills & Kika Mistry 2023). Therefore, having bank accounts and participating in networks represent critical resources necessary for sustainability.
Our study findings underscore the crucial aspect that financial incentives play in bridging the gender inequality gap by allowing the engagement of women in the economy of childcare, thus motivating them to register their ECD centres for subsidy benefits (De Henau et al. 2019; Kika-Mistry et al. 2024). Until recently, the ECD subsidy was R17 a day per child; however, as of March 2025, it was increased to R24 a day per child (Ilifa Labantwana 2025). While the increase of the ECD subsidy seems like a reform, given that the subsidy amount has remained constant at R17 since 2019, some studies have highlighted the fact that the reach of the subsidy is too limited. This assumption is because only 34% of the country’s eligible child population attends ECD centres, and only 33% of the total population are recipients of the ECD subsidy (Kazim & Ally 2023; SmartStart 2020). In his earlier analysis of the Perry Preschool programme, which tracked high-quality education intervention among disadvantaged African American children in ECD centres, Heckman (2012) found a 7%–10% increase in return on investment on ECD. His earlier work supports the case of how budgetary investments in ECD can be a cost-effective strategy in the long run, which can have long-term positive implications for South Africa’s economy, education and social services (Heckman 2012).
The study found that a substantial number of ECD centres did not receive subsidies from DSD (67.07%), and more than a quarter (37.97%) did not allow learners to attend ECD centres without payment of fees. This finding mimics other findings done in South Africa, given that many ECD centres are dependent on the government subsidy and school fees, which are often absent or delayed. Additionally, the government support is only attainable largely via the ECD subsidy for poor children, which does not cater for all operational costs; thus, ECD centres charge fees (Republic of South Africa 2015). Unlike in schools, children in ECD centres lack access to programmes like the National School Nutrition Programme (NSNP) that children in primary and secondary schools can access. This finding suggests that vulnerable children are not reached, given that the ECD subsidy does not reach all children, particularly when the ECD centres are not registered (Hall & Monson 2006; Kazim & Ally 2023; Sello et al. 2024). When the ECD census data were collected in 2021, the NPO status registration was a requirement for receiving a subsidy in South Africa (Matlala & Molokwane 2024). As such, the observed relationship between NPO registration status and access to government subsidy is consistent with the policy environment in which the data were collected.
According to Hofmeyer et al. (2022), before taking office in April 2022, the DBE made efforts to understand the ECD sector functions in 2021. This understanding was achieved through conducting a national ECD census and the Thrive by Five surveys, which were nationally representative. These two studies were instrumental in providing the DBE with background information on the needs of ECD centres and children in South Africa (Hofmeyr, Ardington & Spaull 2023). Data from the ECD census and Thrive by Five survey served as the baseline. The DBE used the data to assess the situation and environments in which children are cared for in South Africa, including children’s early learning skills and developmental outcomes (DBE 2022; Giese et al. 2022; Hofmeyr et al. 2023). Other studies in the country have provided evidence that shows the importance of using data to deliver timely interventions to improve children’s early learning and developmental outcomes (Haffejee, Mbowa & Patel 2023; Matjokana & Bipath 2024; Mbowa, Patel & Sani 2024; Patel et al. 2022).
The social context has a strong association with the ECD registration status (Ashley-Cooper 2021; Atmore et al. 2012; Sello et al. 2024). Our findings also show that the majority of centres registered as NPOs have the capacity to enrol large class sizes of 31–60 children (93.55%). However, some centres (37.97%) denied attendance to children who did not pay fees. These findings can be supported by the mid-year estimates of 2024, which show that of the 5.9m children under five, 1.3m children eligible to attend ELPs are currently not attending (DBE 2023b; Stats SA 2024). This situation reflects the structural and systemic inequalities in the country. Our findings are consistent with older research findings, which showed inequality in access to ECD services in South Africa, where families in disadvantaged communities struggle to afford ECD services because of high unemployment rates (Atmore et al. 2012; Ebrahim, Killian & Rule 2012; Vorster et al. 2016). In her analysis, Ebrahim (2012) found that families adopt alternative models, including home-based care for ECD. Also, the ECD sector faces some challenges. Notably, in 2020, when there was a shutdown of all non-essential services during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the ECD sector was amongst those services shut down, lasting 4 months (Kazim & Ally 2023; Mistry & Wills 2023). One of the key priorities of the DBE is ensuring universal and equitable access that is age-appropriate for all children. In South Africa, a study has credited poverty as a potential ground for discrimination, further hindering access to ECD for some children (Fredman, Donati & Naicker 2022; Sello et al. 2023b). These previous study findings further confirm how the ECD sector was largely regarded as a private entity, given the ‘lack of recognition’ as per Vorster et al.’s (2016) assessment. Although children in vulnerable communities can attend schools in low-income settings for free, the same does not apply to ECD centres. Unlike formal primary and secondary schools, where the Children’s Act of 1995 stipulates that no child should be out of school, ECD attendance is not mandatory for children between the ages of 2 and 5 years. Furthermore, the ECD policy acknowledges that ELPs for children who do not attend schools because they are too young are often cared for in the private sector or by NPOs. Therefore, children of parents who do not have an income are disadvantaged, given that ECD centres often do not have fee exemptions. A study that assesses whether learners are ready to go to school in low- and middle-income country contexts has found a positive association between ECD centre attendance and learning readiness (Sosu & Pimenta 2023). Lack of ECD attendance can have negative implications for school readiness. Looking at the South African context, where there are high income disparities because of the historical legacies of apartheid, many mothers are single and face economic challenges (Burger et al. 2022). Some studies have highlighted the benefits of children attending ECD centres, with others showing evidence of improved nutritional outcomes (Kalra & Shah 2023; Müller, Ronaasen & Besada 2023; Sello et al. 2023b).
Our findings also show that most of the ECD centres did not belong to any network (69.09%). Results from the multivariate analysis show that being part of the wider ECD network increased the odds of ECD registration by 82%. In terms of the qualifications and training of staff members in ECD centres, about half of the staff did not have any training in accredited skills programmes. A quarter did not have NQF level 4–5, and just over one-third did not have first aid training. In South Africa, there have been various initiatives by other networks and organisations to support ECD centres in registering their ECD centres and training staff. Centres with staff holding NQF Level 4–5 qualifications were more likely to be registered as NPOs. Moreover, participation in accredited skills programmes, observed among 47.71% of staff, indicates progress towards the broader national goal of professionalising the ECD sector (UNESCO 2019). Qualified staff are often better equipped to handle the administrative processes, maintain compliance with departmental requirements, and deliver higher-quality ECD services (Ronaasen 2021). Organisations such as SmartStart, Training and Resources in Early Education (TREE ECD), the National ECD Alliance, Impande South Africa and Ntataise have played a role in providing training and resources to help ECD centres deliver quality services, including how to source funding. Unfortunately, some ECD centres still do not have bank accounts. Our findings show that ECD centres with bank accounts were 4.20 times more likely to be registered, highlighting the importance of administrative capacity in the formalisation process. This result echoes findings from Aina (2023), who argued that management, such as maintaining a bank account, was important for accountability and trustworthiness. Record keeping was especially important when seeking public or donor funding (Aina 2023). The role of infrastructure quality has been highlighted previously, and its importance is echoed by the findings that show that ECD centres with physical features such as fencing, lockable gates, separate toilets, and cooking areas were significantly more likely to be registered as NPOs. This finding suggests that better-resourced centres are more likely to meet the infrastructural standards required for formal registration. These findings are consistent with work by Ebrahim, Killian and Rule (2011), who note that inadequate infrastructure is a key barrier to registration and sustainability of ECD centres, particularly in low-income communities. Good infrastructure not only enhances child safety and learning outcomes but also facilitates compliance with departmental norms and standards. Additionally, a study in Khayelitsha and Franschhoek, in the Western Cape province, found that communities have ECD forums. The ECD forums serve as networks – emerging from either external institutions or the community ECD centres themselves. The role of the ECD forums is to support each other and support the emerging ECD centres through knowledge and resource sharing. This knowledge includes providing information on registration and offering assistance based on their collective experience (Blom 2019).
The institutional theory, as articulated by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), helps explain the legal requirements that drive ECD centres towards conforming to institutionalised models of what a ‘legitimate’ centre should look like. The significant association between NPO registration and features such as qualified staff, safe infrastructure, and separate classes for different age groups suggests that ECD centres were responding to pressures arising from compliance requirements and professional standards within the ECD sector. As more centres adopt these formal structures, unregistered centres may feel increased pressure to conform to gain legitimacy, recognition, and access to resources. Together, the resource dependence theory and institutional theory explain the observed patterns: while resource acquisition motivates registration from a functional perspective, the desire for legitimacy and alignment with sectoral norms influences the ECD centre’s motivation to register.
Study limitations
The analysis is based on cross-sectional data, which does not allow for the opportunity to limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables and the outcome of the study. Although the study uses infrastructure and staff qualifications as proxies for quality, it does not include other critical indicators such as curriculum implementation, child learning outcomes, or parent engagement. Therefore, the absence of these factors limits the understanding of how NPO registration correlates with holistic ECD service quality. Given that the study relies heavily on quantitative data and does not include qualitative perspectives from ECD practitioners, centre managers, or government officials, important contextual factors such as administrative challenges, perceptions of registration benefits, or socio-political dynamics influencing registration decisions have been missed.
Conclusion and recommendations
In conclusion, although the major policy change by the DBE has removed the requirement for ECD centres to register as NPOs to ease the administrative burden of the application process, the findings of this study remain relevant for understanding the determinants and barriers to ECD centre registration. This study highlights the fact that there are many factors influencing NPO registration, including infrastructural considerations, staffing, financial management, government support via subsidies, and network participation. These findings suggest that efforts to promote registration and formalisation of ECD centres must address not only administrative barriers but also capacity constraints faced by centres. Policymakers should consider targeted support for infrastructure development, administrative training, and networks to support ECD centres, particularly ECD centres in resource-constrained environments.
This study makes an important contribution to considering the registration challenges within the ECD sector in South Africa by identifying key determinants associated with NPO registration. While prior research has highlighted structural and policy challenges in the ECD landscape (Atmore et al. 2012; Biersteker 2010), this study provides empirical evidence on the characteristics, both operational and infrastructural, that influence centres’ likelihood of registering as NPOs. By highlighting the relationship between NPO registration and factors such as DSD registration, infrastructure quality, staff qualifications, and financial administration, such as having a bank account, the study provides an evidence base for targeted interventions to support ECD centres in becoming registered and compliant with national standards. The study reveals the link between registration and service quality because a positive association has been noted with ECD centre registration and having better infrastructure, qualified staff and a bank account. In this way, the research contributes to ongoing discussions about how compliance with registration requirements can promote improved outcomes for children. By quantifying the associations between registration status and access to subsidies, this study highlights the role of government subsidies as both an incentive and motivation for ECD registration. These findings can inform policy revisions aimed at increasing equity and access to quality ECD centres across South Africa.
Acknowledgements
M.V.S. would like to acknowledge Dr. Samson Konlan for providing critical input in the research idea of this article.
Competing interests
The author declares that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Author’s contributions
M.V.S. is the sole author of this research article.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The dataset is publicly available from the University of Cape Town data repository via the DataFirst website: https://www.datafirst.uct.ac.za/dataportal/index.php/catalog/908.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency, or that of the publisher. The author is responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Aina, A. & Bipath, K., 2022, ‘Availability and use of infrastructural resources in promoting quality early childhood care and education in registered early childhood development centres’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 12(1), a980. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v12i1.980
Aina, A.Y., 2023, ‘Financial management experiences of township early childhood development centre principals in Gauteng Province of South Africa’, Research Square 1–18. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2555588/v1
Ashley-Cooper, M., 2021, ‘The inequality of access to early childhood development programmes in South Africa’, in E. Atmore, M. Ashley-Cooper & L. Van Niekerk (eds.), Thought leaders on early childhood development in South Africa, pp. 27–34, Centre for Early Childhood Development, Cape Town.
Ashley-Cooper, M., Van Niekerk, L.-J. & Atmore, E., 2019, ‘Early childhood development in South Africa: Inequality and opportunity’, in N. Spaull & J.D. Jansen (eds.) South African schooling: The enigma of inequality, pp. 87–108, Springer, Cham.
Atmore, E., Van Niekerk, L. & Ashley-Cooper, M., 2012, ‘Challenges facing early childhood development sector in South Africa’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 2(1), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v2i1.25
Biersteker, L., 2010, Scaling-up early child development in South Africa: Introducing a reception year (Grade R) for children aged five years as the first year of schooling, Wolfensohn Center for Development Working Paper No. 17, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
Biersteker, L., Dawes, A., Hendricks, L. & Tredoux, C.L., 2016, ‘Center-based early childhood care and education program quality: A South African study’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 36, 334–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.004
Biersteker, L. & Dowdall, N., 2024, ‘Progress and pathways towards quality early learning: From the home to structured learning programmes’, in W. Slemming, L. Biersteker & L. Lake (eds.), South African child gauge 2024: Enhancing early childhood development, pp. 97–111, Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, viewed from https://ci.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/media/documents/ci_uct_ac_za/533/early-learning-child-gauge-2024.pdf.
Blom, J., 2019, The role of early childhood development forums in fostering community development and strengthening early childhood development centres in Khayelitsha and Franschhoek, University of Cape Town, viewed 15 April 2025, from https://cecd.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/jessica_blom_masters_dissertation.pdf.
Burger, R., Du Plessis, L., Gangaldzo, T. & Wills, G., 2022, Priority areas for reducing stunting in South Africa: Examining the implications of recent international evidence, Report No. 004/2022, Ilifa Labantwana and RESEP, Cape Town.
Department of Basic Education (DBE), 2022, ECD Census 2021: Report, Department of Basic Education, Pretoria, viewed 20 October 2022, from https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Reports/ECD%20Census%202021%20-%20Summary%20of%20Key%20Results.pdf.
DBE, 2023a, NPO registration no longer required for ECD programmes to be eligible to receive the ECD subsidy.
DBE, 2023b, South Africa’s 2030 strategy for early childhood development programmes, Pretoria, viewed 24 January 2025, from www.education.gov.za.
De Henau, J., Budlender, D., Filgueira, F., Ilkkaraçan, I., Kim, K. & Mantero, R., 2019, Investing in free universal childcare in South Africa, Turkey and Uruguay, p. 28, New York, NY.
DiMaggio, P.J. & Powell, W.W., 1983, ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
DSD, 2006, Guidelines for early childhood development services, Pretoria, viewed 01 February 2025, from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/childhooddev0.pdf.
DSD, 2024, Annual report for the year ended 31 March 2024, Pretoria, viewed 17 March 2025, from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/202410/dsdannualreport20232024.pdf.
Ebrahim, H.B., Killian, B. & Rule, P., 2011, ‘Practices of early childhood development practitioners for poor and vulnerable children from birth to four years in South Africa’, Early Child Development and Care 181(3), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430903392602
Fredman, S., Donati, G. & Naicker, S., 2022, ‘New beginnings: The right to equality and early childhood care and education’, South African Journal on Human Rights 38(3–4), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2023.2214372
Genesis Analytics, 2025, Evaluation of the South African integrated early childhood development policy, Johannesburg, viewed 24 July 2025, from https://www.education.gov.za/Portals/0/Documents/Publications/2024/EvaluationReportNIECDPolicy.pdf?ver=2024-05-07-120654-850.
Giese, S., Dawes, A., Tredoux, C., Mattes, F., Bridgman, G., Van der Berg, S. et al., 2022, Thrive by five index report, First National Bank (FNB) and Innovation Edge, in partnership with RESEP, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, viewed 15 April 2025, from https://www.thrivebyfive.co.za.
Haffejee, S., Mbowa, S. & Patel, L., 2023, ‘An integrated multisectoral and multidisciplinary community of practice collaboration to enhance child wellbeing in South Africa’, Journal of Integrated Care 31(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-04-2023-0021
Hall, K. & Monson, J., 2006, ‘Free to learn: The school fee exemption policy and the national school nutrition programme’, in J. Monson et al. (eds.), South African child gauge, pp. 45–50, Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Heckman, J.J., 2012, Invest in early childhood development: Reduce deficits, strengthen the economy, The Heckman Equation.
Hofmeyr, H., Ardington, C. & Spaull, N., 2022, Roots and Shoots, Publisher/Research unit, e.g. Research on Socio-Economic Policy (RESEP), Stellenbosch, viewed 15 April 2025, from https://innovationedge.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Roots-Shoots-Baseline-Report.pdf.
Hofmeyr, H., Ardington, C. & Spaull, N., 2023, Baseline report: Research from early learning to school outcomes, Cape Town, viewed from https://innovationedge.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Roots-Shoots-Baseline-Report.pdf.
Ilifa Labantwana, 2025, Budget 2025: The first step towards a children’s budget, viewed 15 April 2025, from https://ilifalabantwana.co.za/budget-2025-the-first-step-towards-a-childrens-budget/#:~:text=Morechildrenwillreceivea,toqualityECDby2030.
IPASA, 2022, ECD funding landscape: Survey, viewed 16 July 2025, from https://ipa-sa.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/IPASA-ECD-Funding-Landscape-Survey-October-2022.pdf.
Kalra, S. & Shah, D., 2023, ‘Care beyond newborn survival including child health and early childhood development; Mental and psychological health’, Indian Journal of Pediatrics 90, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12098-023-04701-x
Karisa, A., Samuels, C., Watermeyer, B., McKenzie, J. & Vergunst, R., 2022, ‘Priorities for access to early childhood development services for children with disabilities in South Africa’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 12(1), a1119. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v12i1.1119
Kazim, T. & Ally, N., 2023, Early childhood development and the state’s duty to provide basic nutrition to young children in South Africa, Cape Town, viewed 16 May 2024, from https://www.ecdreform.org.za/uploads/early-childhood-development-and-the-state-s-duty-to-provide-basic-nutrition.pdf.
Kika-Mistry, J., Droomer, L., Mohamed, Z. & Senona, E., 2024, ‘Strengthening the system: Early childhood development finance’, in W. Slemming, L. Biersteker & L. Lake (eds.), South African child gauge 2024: Enhancing early childhood development, pp. 1–244, nChildren’s Institute, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, viewed 29 April 2025, from https://ci.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/media/documents/ci_uct_ac_za/533/full-publication-child-gauge-2024.pdf.
Madyibi, S. & Bayat, A., 2021, ‘A case study of early childhood development facility infrastructure in Philippi, South Africa’, Perspectives in Education 39(4), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v39.i4.2
Matjokana, T.N. & Bipath, K, 2024, ‘Unblocking the system to strengthen implementation of early childhood development policies and practice in South Africa’, Research in Educational Policy and Management 6(1), 32–51. https://doi.org/10.46303/repam.2024.3
Matlala, L. & Molokwane, P., 2024, ‘New home for early childhood development in the DBE: Implications for ECD practitioners?’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 14(1), a1566. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v14i1.1566
Mbowa, S., Patel, L. & Sani, T., 2024, Communities of practice for social systems strengthening to improve child wellbeing outcome: Can a family-strengthening intervention improve child wellbeing outcomes for early grade learners?, Johannesburg, viewed 29 April 2025, from https://communitiesforchildwellbeing.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CSDA-_-SihlengimiziResearchBrief-_-Research-Brief-_-A4-_-June-2024-_-2.pdf.
Mistry, K.J. & Wills, G., 2023, ‘Compliance, cost and user fees in the early childhood care and education sector in South Africa’, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4331489
Müller, A.M., Ronaasen, J. & Besada, D., 2023, Adequate nutrition: A pillar of early childhood development, Cape Town, viewed 30 April 2025, from https://www.ecdreform.org.za/uploads/adequate-nutrition-a-pillar-of-early-childhood-development.pdf.
Parliamentary Communication Services, 2025, ‘Basic education committee chairperson encouraged by additional funding announced in budget’, Polity, 13 March, viewed 17 March 2025, from https://www.polity.org.za/article/basic-education-committee-chairperson-encouraged-by-additional-funding-announced-in-budget-2025-03-13.
Patel, L., Pillay, J., Henning, E., Tekuldarie, A., Norris, S., Graham, L. et al., 2022, Community of practice for social systems strengthening to better child well-being outcomes: How well are our children faring? An assessment of child well-being of early grade learners at selected Gauteng schools 2020–2021, Johannesburg, viewed 15 August 2023, from https://www.uj.ac.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/csda-_-cop-_-research-report-_-wave-2-_-a4-_-jul-2022-_-5.pdf.
Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G., 1978, The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective, New York, NY, viewed 17 July 2025, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496213.
Republic of South Africa, 1997, Nonprofit Organisations Act No. 71 of 1997, Pretoria, viewed 24 July 2025, from https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201409/a71-97.pdf.
Republic of South Africa, 2005, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, Government Printers, Pretoria.
Republic of South Africa, 2015, National integrated early childhood development policy 2015, Government Printers, Pretoria, viewed 19 December 2022, from https://www.gov.za/documents/national-integrated-early-childhood-development-policy-2015-2-aug-2016-0000.
Richter, L.M., Biersteker, L., Desmond, C., Naicker, S. & Rama, S., 2012, Diagnostic review of early childhood development, Pretoria.
Ronaasen, J., 2021, ‘Essential management competencies of principals at early childhood development centres’, Doctoral thesis, Stellenbosch University.
Sargsyan, V., Tenorio, A., Uwera, M., Gasirikare, A., Habyarimana, J., Salcido, J. et al., 2023, ‘The benefits of nurturing care interventions on early child development and care: Findings from a quasi-experimental study in a humanitarian setting’, BMC Pediatrics 23(1), 419. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-023-04239-z
Sello, M., Adedini, S. & Odimegwu, C., 2023a, ‘Linking care and support systems to improve childhood malnutrition: Early childhood development practitioners’ perceptions of integrating multisectoral systems in South Africa’, The Open Public Health Journal 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.2174/18749445-v16-230925-2023-46
Sello, M., Adedini, S.A., Odimegwu, C., Petlele, R. & Tapera T., 2023b, ‘The relationship between childcare-giving arrangements and children’s malnutrition status in South Africa’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(3), 2572. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032572
Sello, M., De Wet-Billings, N., Mabetha, K. & Makuapane, L., 2024, ‘Removing barriers to registration for early childhood development centres’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 14(1), 2223–7682. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v14i1.1519
SmartStart, 2020, Closing the gap in South Africa’s early learning provision: The case for a national delivery platform, Johannesburg, viewed 29 May 2025, from https://www.hst.org.za/publications/HSTPublications/ECDprovisioninggapandcaseforNDPFINAL.pdf.
Sosu, E.M. & Pimenta, S.M., 2023, ‘Early childhood education attendance and school readiness in low- and middle-income countries: The moderating role of family socioeconomic status’, Early Childhood Research Quarterly 63, 410–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.01.005
Stats SA, 2024, Mid-year population estimates, Pretoria, viewed 06 February 2025, from https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0302/P03022024.pdf.
UNESCO, 2019, Sustainable Development Goal 4 and its targets, UNESCO.
UNICEF, WHO & The World Bank, 2018, Nurturing care for early childhood development: A framework for helping children survive and thrive to transform health and human potential, Geneva.
Vorster, A., Sacks, A., Amod, Z., Seabi, J. & Kern, A., 2016, ‘The everyday experiences of early childhood caregivers: Challenges in an under-resourced community’, South African Journal of Childhood Education 6(1), a257. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajce.v6i1.257
Wills, G. & Kika-Mistry, J., 2023, ‘Supply-side and demand-side approaches to financing early childhood care and education in South Africa’, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4331502
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
