Assessing the policy options for the public provisioning of early childhood development programmes

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW South African Journal on Human Rights Pub Date : 2022-10-02 DOI:10.1080/02587203.2022.2149614
L. Brooks, Janeli Kotze, C. Almeleh, Enganas Senona
{"title":"Assessing the policy options for the public provisioning of early childhood development programmes","authors":"L. Brooks, Janeli Kotze, C. Almeleh, Enganas Senona","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2022.2149614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Levels of access to early childhood development (ECD) programmes in South Africa are around 35 per cent for children aged zero to five, and lower for children in poor households. This despite evidence linking participation to benefits that address poverty, inequality and unemployment, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Notwithstanding government’s commitment to ECD as a universal right in ECD policy, state subsidies benefit only 13 per cent of children in quintiles one to three, limited by marginal increases in public sector budgets over the past decade. Shifting responsibility for ECD programmes to the Department of Basic Education (DBE) has the potential to catalyse broad reform to ensure universal access to quality ECD programmes. This paper considers the access gap that the DBE must address to realise the universal right to ECD. It evaluates two policy approaches to the expansion of public provision of ECD programmes: through a purpose-built centre approach or a mixed-model approach. The cost, capacity and policy implications for these two expansion approaches are evaluated, showing that a mixed-model approach will enable the realisation of the universal right to ECD more cost-efficiently than a purpose-built centre approach.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"38 1","pages":"240 - 260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2022.2149614","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Levels of access to early childhood development (ECD) programmes in South Africa are around 35 per cent for children aged zero to five, and lower for children in poor households. This despite evidence linking participation to benefits that address poverty, inequality and unemployment, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Notwithstanding government’s commitment to ECD as a universal right in ECD policy, state subsidies benefit only 13 per cent of children in quintiles one to three, limited by marginal increases in public sector budgets over the past decade. Shifting responsibility for ECD programmes to the Department of Basic Education (DBE) has the potential to catalyse broad reform to ensure universal access to quality ECD programmes. This paper considers the access gap that the DBE must address to realise the universal right to ECD. It evaluates two policy approaches to the expansion of public provision of ECD programmes: through a purpose-built centre approach or a mixed-model approach. The cost, capacity and policy implications for these two expansion approaches are evaluated, showing that a mixed-model approach will enable the realisation of the universal right to ECD more cost-efficiently than a purpose-built centre approach.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估公共提供幼儿发展方案的政策选择
摘要南非0至5岁儿童获得幼儿发展方案的比例约为35%,贫困家庭儿童的比例更低。尽管有证据表明,参与与解决贫困、不平等和失业问题的福利挂钩,尤其是对来自弱势背景的儿童而言。尽管政府承诺将幼儿发展作为幼儿发展政策中的一项普遍权利,但由于过去十年公共部门预算的小幅增长,国家补贴仅惠及一至三分之一的13%的儿童。将幼儿发展计划的责任移交给基础教育部有可能推动广泛的改革,以确保普及高质量的幼儿发展计划。本文考虑了弱势经济实体为实现幼儿发展的普遍权利而必须解决的准入差距。它评估了扩大幼儿发展方案公共提供的两种政策方法:通过专门建立的中心方法或混合模式方法。对这两种扩展方法的成本、能力和政策影响进行了评估,表明混合模式方法将比专门建立的中心方法更具成本效益地实现幼儿发展的普遍权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Consulting citizens: Addressing the deficits in participatory democracy Ubuntu, human rights and sustainable development: Lessons from the African Arbitration Academy’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Research handbook on economic, social and cultural rights Augmentative and alternative communication in the South African justice system: Potential and pitfalls The importance of litigating the right to access sufficient food: Equal Education v Minister of Basic Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1