The United Nations stated the universal termination of poverty in all its forms as the first of its 17 Sustainable Development Goals identified by the organisation in 2015 (United Nations 2015). Also, Statistics South Africa (2015) regards the eradication of poverty as one of the most pressing issues to be addressed. Poverty is a complex chronic and debilitating condition. A plethora of literature since the 1960s has shown its negative impact on all aspects of a child’s development (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan 1997; Jensen 2009; Mustard 2007; Shonkoff & Phillips 2000).

In spite of this bleak scenario, leading economists such as Heckman (2013), Bernanke (2012), Grunewald (2015) as well as the World Bank publication No Small Matter: The Impact of Poverty, Shocks, and Human Capital Investments in Early Childhood (Alderman 2011) regard quality early childhood development (ECD) programmes to be one of the most efficient ways to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots. At the same time, Grunewald (2015) warns against poor quality of ECD programmes, which he believes creates excessive stress that is detrimental to the healthy development of children. Therefore, programmes catering for poor children should be tailored to address their needs to be developmentally appropriate and efficient (Azzi-Lessing 2010).

For this reason, ECD practitioners serving these children and their families need to be empowered to develop and present a suitable programme. Practitioners experience the needs of the children in their care on a daily basis. They also intimately understand the social conditions of their communities, which, in turn, influence the development of their children. Therefore, their experiences should be a primary consideration when designing a quality ECD programme for children from impoverished backgrounds. Regarding the empowerment of unqualified practitioners in township centres, Fourie (2013) recommends practitioner participation in the development of their skills and knowledge. In this regard, Fourie (2013:61) refers to ‘teaching and learning experiences that are transactional’.

Some significant studies have been conducted on early childhood programmes in predominantly black informal settlements and impoverished rural areas (Dawes, Biersteker & Hendricks 2012; Ebrahim, Killian & Rule 2011; Van der Vyver 2012). Insights emanating from such studies contribute to a better understanding of the context and needs of ECD centres in these communities. However, no scholarly studies on ECD programmes in informal settlements of predominantly white people could be found. This observation was confirmed by Dr Danie Brink, executive director of Solidarity Helping Hand (a non-government organisation [NGO] whose focus is primarily on the plight of poor white people) during a personal communication in 2015.

This article is based on a study of the experiences of two ECD practitioners working and living in impoverished predominantly white informal settlements (Knafo 2016). The broader study was guided by four questions:

Although the practitioners were not qualified, they showed remarkable dedication and insight regarding their work. Yet, a sense of disempowerment in their lives and work emerged as an ever-present theme in the stories of the participants. The two centres were supported by various volunteers from charity organisations and churches in terms of material support, and also in organising and running the centres. This state of affairs informed the fourth question above. This article now focuses explicitly on the last question.

The research focus is therefore on the degree of empowerment as experienced by the practitioners as a result of the various external influences and their particular context to work ethics.

The study was concerned with the participants’ understanding of the world in which they live and work. Creswell (2013) in this regard endorses that this view is shaped through their interaction with others. Therefore, it was necessary to understand the social context and complexities of the participants’ experiences. Thus, the research approach was qualitative and narrative inquiry, nested in the social constructivist paradigm, was the design type. A narrative inquiry based on Dewey’s (1938) notion of experience as research design was considered to be most appropriate, as ‘experience’ is the core of this study. Dewey explains that ‘experience’ creates social reality and from this ontological assumption, all inquiry follows (Clandinin & Rosiek 2007). Accordingly, Caine, Estefan and Clandinin (2013) speak about a relational ontology in this regard. The narrative inquirer studies the experiences of the participants through their storied lives. At the same time, the cultural, historical, social and institutional narratives within which individual experiences are shaped and developed are also considered an important source of knowledge and understanding (Clandinin & Rosiek 2007). For this study, the socio-political narratives regarding ‘white squatter camps’ within the broader South African context were explored. However, the experiences of the participants were the start and end points of the study.

A purposive sampling strategy was used to identify two practitioners (Rina and Thea, respectively)¹ in impoverished and marginalised communities of predominantly white people, who were information-rich and knowledgeable about the phenomenon (McMillan & Schumacher 2010; Strydom & Delport 2011). Rina worked as a practitioner alongside another practitioner – a volunteer from a church group. She was responsible for the younger group, whereas the volunteer taught the older group. The centre was managed by this volunteer as well as other volunteers. Thea, on the other hand, was appointed as a principal as well as a Grade R teacher by a volunteer (Mia)¹ who started the centre in this community and also managed the centre. A few members of the community were appointed by the volunteer to work as practitioners for the younger age groups. The sample size was limited by the small population size, the availability of information-rich cases and the narrative interview as primary data collection technique as an in-depth understanding of their experiences was relevant. Christensen, Johnson and Turner (2015) expound the aim of purposive sampling to gain insight into a phenomenon and not to generalise findings from a sample to a population.

Gaining access to these communities was incredibly daunting. We had to approach two NGOs active in these communities to introduce us as a ‘friend’ of the community, because the members were wary of outsiders. We explained the purpose of the study to the manager of one of the settlements and the owner of the farm where the second settlement was established. Letters requesting the participation of the community in the study were explained and signed by the manager and the owner of the respective settlements. Letters of informed consent were signed by the two prospective participants after the purpose of the study as well as the significance of their contribution had been explained. We also secured ethical clearance from the College of Education of the University of South Africa.

The focus of this study was the experiences of Rina and Thea of their daily life and work as ECD practitioners in impoverished and marginalised communities of mostly white people. Data were collected using a variety of methods which allowed for a composition of richly descriptive field texts of the experiences of the participants. These included narrative interviews and conversations with the participants, field notes of non-participant observations, photographs, documents and artefacts.

Jovchelovitch and Bauer (2000) define the narrative interview as an unstructured in-depth interview used in qualitative research. The participant in a narrative interview is a storyteller who constructs the story on his or her terms and can develop or change the focus of the narrative according to his or her agenda (Hollway & Jefferson 2008). The narrative interviews for this study were based on one question to the participants, to speak about their challenges and experiences regarding their work as ECD practitioners. This question elicited a response from the participants, but they owned the response. Their narratives were not only about their work but also about their settlement. They talked about their experiences not only with the children in the centre and their parents, but also with the community, their families and the outsiders and volunteers supporting the centre and the community. They talked about what they did before moving to the settlement, their present situation and their future plans.

The large volume of collected data was coded using 7 of the 32 coding techniques identified by Saldaña (2013). The steps recommended by Creswell (2013) and Butler-Kisber (2010) were followed to arrive at four themes, which became the major components of this study and write-up. Categories were constructed from the initial codes by comparing, combining, sorting and rearranging codes. These categories were then reduced and combined into four themes based on connections among the categories. The four themes were the practitioners’ personal and social experiences, their experiences concerning place (their settlements), their experiences with camp leadership and their experiences concerning support infrastructure.

The data the participants provided the researchers to work with also left them vulnerable. The researchers therefore adhered to ethical measures such as informed consent, avoidance of harm, assurance of privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity and access to research texts. The researchers also tended to ethical issues specific to a narrative inquiry and dealt with these during the entire inquiry. Throughout the study, the researchers considered the observation of Elliot (2005) that the way a researcher analyses and interprets personal narratives may affect the participants. The researchers followed the recommendation by Berg (2009) to discuss the participants, their viewpoints, their settlements and their communities with sensitivity without compromising on honesty. The researchers followed Lieblich’s advice (Clandinin & Murphy 2007) to listen emphatically without judgement or disbelief. During the interviews and conversations with the participants, it was emphasised that because the researchers had never worked in similar conditions, their opinions could not be judged and that the participants were the experts in their contexts.

At the same time, the researchers endeavoured to establish the trustworthiness of this study in various ways, for example, to spend extensive time in the field with the participants to build a relationship of trust and to observe them in their natural environments (Butler-Kisber 2010; Creswell 2013; Lincoln & Guba 1985; Schurink, Fouché & De Vos 2011); to record interviews electronically and to jot down detailed observations on the spot (Strydom 2011) and to use various forms of field texts and data collection strategies to create thick descriptions (Butler-Kisber 2010; Creswell 2013).As the focus of the study was the experiences of the participants, their voices were conspicuous throughout the study (Butler-Kisber 2010).

Although the two communities where the study was conducted were similar, they were also different in many respects. Both were communities of mostly unemployed homeless individuals who lost their jobs, who were too sick or unqualified to work and even people who fled from the law. Many of the residents suffered from social ills that often accompany a life of poverty, such as alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence and physical and sexual abuse, as described by Azzi-Lessing (2010), Waldfogel, Craigie and Brooks-Gunn (2010), Solidarity Helping Hand (2010) and Jensen (2009).

Rina’s settlement was a classic informal settlement, such as defined by Huchzermeyer and Karam (2006) as land illegally occupied as living space by the urban poor where any homeless person could squat. Thea’s community, on the other hand, lived in a legal settlement on a privately-owned farm where the farmer erected wooden huts for unemployed and homeless families. Housing in both settlements was substandard and not conducive to the physical and social well-being of the residents. Although Rina’s settlement was characterised by neglect and littering, the gardens in Thea’s settlement were well tended to. Poverty and an accompanying sense of desperation compromised parents’ capacity for positive parenting in both settlements.

The two participants came from vastly different backgrounds and had different histories that brought them to their respective settlements. Rina was a married woman with four children in her late 30s. She had completed her high school education and worked in an administrative position in a big city council until both she and her husband became unemployed and the family was evicted from their house for their inability to pay rent. The family ended up in the settlement. Rina desperately wanted to move away as she believed that settlement life was not a dignified way to raise her children. She doubted her abilities as a practitioner and was satisfied to do menial work. At the same time, the volunteers (without any teaching qualifications) acted as teachers of the children.

Thea, on the other hand, was an unmarried woman in her mid-40s. She had a BSc degree and used to have a work and an apartment. Nevertheless, she chose to resign and moved to live and work in an informal settlement as she believed this move to be a divine calling. She was confident about her professional skills and was appointed as a principal of the centre. Therefore, she was highly disappointed when her authority was disregarded by her colleagues and the volunteer who originally appointed her as a principal. However, both practitioners loved the children in their care and were devoted to their work. Both showed remarkable insight regarding the needs of the children in their respective centres and an understanding of the socio-economic conditions that hamper optimal growth and development of the children. They focused on the achievements of the children and not on their shortcomings. As Rina and Thea were the most qualified members of their respective communities, they also had to run an aftercare facility for the school children of their settlements to assist with homework.

In spite of different backgrounds, personal histories and unique personalities, four dominant themes common to the participants’ narratives could be identified, including the practitioners’ personal and social experiences, their experiences concerning place, their experiences with camp leadership and their experiences concerning support infrastructure. Butler-Kisber (2010:15) indicates that in qualitative research, because of the small number of participants and the contextualised nature of the research, one situation cannot be generalised to another. Therefore, the findings regarding the two participants’ experiences are separately discussed.

At the same time, the various contextual systems of influence as defined by Bronfenbrenner (1979) are evident in the experiences of both Rina and Thea. From the themes that emerged from this study, it is evident that various microsystems were at play in Rina and Thea’s experiences. These include the children they worked with and their colleagues with whom they interacted on a daily basis. The volunteers who established and maintained the centres and either worked as practitioner in the centre or assisted the practitioners were microsystems of the practitioners. The owner or camp manager of the two communities also served as microsystems of the practitioners. The mesosystem included the relationship between the children in the centre and the other practitioners (the colleagues of the two practitioners), between camp management and the volunteers and between their colleagues and the volunteers. From the identified themes, the parents of the children emerged as exosystem of the participants. The practitioners had to cope with the challenges of the children caused by problematic circumstances at home. The links between the volunteers and donors or sponsors were more examples of the practitioners’ exosystem. Although the practitioners often did not know the donors or sponsors, they depended on their goodwill and aid to survive and to keep the doors of the centres open. The macrosystem of the participants included the deprived lifestyle of the communities and the social woes that usually accompany poverty as indicated in poverty literature, for example, Azzi-Lessing (2010), Waldfogel et al. (2010) and Jensen (2009).This, in turn, typically had an influence on the residents’ parenting skills which, in turn, contributed to the behavioural problems of the children in the practitioners’ care. The participant practitioners were also subject to the economic hardship of the community which affected their health and emotional well-being.

Rina and Thea came from different backgrounds with unique personalities and motivations for living and working in their settlements, which coloured their experiences and influenced their responses regarding their situations. Yet, a unifying thread in the four themes that emerged in the participants’ narratives was that of a sense of disempowerment in the various domains of their lives and work. The participants were, for example, never enabled by the different role players active in the communities to make a meaningful difference in the lives of the children. Furthermore, they were not allowed by these role players to apply their skills, experience and insight in their daily work.

This article aimed to shed light on the experiences of two ECD practitioners working and living in poor marginalised communities of predominantly white people. A more specific focus was their contexts as (dis)empowering agents based on practitioner narratives. The discourse about the marginalisation of the poor as discussed in the literature review played out in the work and lives of the two participants. They were marginalised in terms of any decision-making concerning the centres by the volunteers and camp leadership, notwithstanding their professional experience and insight. This, in turn, compromised the quality of the programmes. Furthermore, compromised parenting created challenges for the children which the practitioners were not empowered to handle. The volunteers who were qualified in this regard preferred to perform the teaching tasks of the practitioners. Fear of eviction also prevented the practitioners from addressing concerns regarding the well-being of the children.

We believe that this article can make a modest contribution towards gaining a better understanding of the nature of effective support to ECD centres in impoverished and marginalised communities. The empowerment of the practitioners in these communities is particularly relevant. The experiences of the practitioners in terms of contextual disempowerment might resonate with those of their colleagues in similar impoverished communities – not only in predominantly white communities.

In order for volunteers and benefactors to make a meaningful difference in the lives of the people they are serving, they should firstly acknowledge the input of key role players. Secondly, practitioners should be professionally empowered to deliver a quality service for their specific context. Thirdly, the practitioners’ articulated needs and challenges should be addressed. Lastly, practitioners should be empowered in their personal lives by paying them a living wage and creating dignified working and living conditions for them.