Children’s socio-economic circumstances are a key lens for understanding disparities in developmental outcomes and access to opportunities. Economic circumstances – from poverty to affluence – are deeply connected to the resources and support systems available to young children. Families’ economic resources influence caregiver wellbeing, child health and nutrition, the home learning environment, and access to quality early learning programmes (ELPs) – all major influences on developmental outcomes.
Â
A core objective of the Thrive by Five Index is to track how the performance gap between children from higher and lower socio-economic groups changes over time. A reliable, valid measure of where children are located on the poverty-wealth spectrum is therefore required to:
- Be a meaningful proxy for socio-economic circumstances;
- Provide valid comparisons over time; and
- Be replicable for future rounds of the Thrive by Five Index.
Â
In the first round of the Thrive by Five Index (2021), monthly ELP fee levels were used as a socioeconomic proxy. Fees offer a practical reflection of what households are likely able to afford within their local context, providing a useful, if imperfect, indicator of relative economic means. Nationally, there were five distinct fee bands of between R0 – R1750+per month. K-means clustering was applied to create these groups, but this produced uneven cluster sizes, with very small groups at the tails.
Â
To address these limitations, the 2024 Index adopted a new approach (Working Paper in press). Nearly all ELPs charge fees (97%) with fees ranging from R0–R50 in L1 Low to over R1,690 in L5 High. Monthly ELP fees, reported by principals and validated through cross-checks with parent-reported data (available for 95% of ELPs in the final sample), were also selected as the most appropriate available proxy for children’s socio-economic circumstances. The 2024 Index sample was initially divided into the same five quintiles based on fee levels. However, further analysis revealed important differences within the highest and lowest levels. To reflect this, these two levels were split into low and high sub-groups respectively (L1 Low and L1 High and L5 Low and L5 High), resulting in a total of seven ELP fee groups. Considering both the total ELOM scores and performance across individual ELOM domains, seven fee groups were selected to adequately capture performance gradients, ensure meaningful disaggregation at the lower and upper ends of the fee distribution, and allow for comparability with future rounds of the Thrive by Five Index.Â
Â
This figure illustrates the performance gradients by fee groups by looking at the average ELOM scores across fee groups.
Â
Average ELOM scores by fee groups
Â
Â
This table presents the minimum and maximum monthly fees charged per level for both the 2021 and 2024 Thrive by Five waves.Â
Â
| Fee level group | Monthly fee per child (Rands) | |
| Thrive by Five 2021 | Thrive by Five 2024 | |
| Level 1: low | R0-R110 | R0-R50 |
| Level 1: high | R51-R120 | |
| Level 2: | R111-R290 | R121-R240 |
| Level 3:Â | R291-R750 | R241-R350 |
| Level 4:Â | R751-R1750 | R351-R800 |
| Level 5: low | R1751+ | R801-R1690 |
| Level 5: high | R1691+ | |
Â
FAQs: ELP Fee Levels in the Thrive by Five Index
Why are ELP fees used as a socio-economic indicator?
Monthly ELP fees serve as a practical reflection of what households can afford within their local context. While not perfect, fees provide a useful indicator of relative economic means and are consistently available across programmes.
How many fee levels are used in the 2024 Index?
The 2024 Thrive by Five Index uses seven ELP fee groups, ranging from Level 1 Low (R0-R50 per month) to Level 5 High (R1,691+ per month). This structure allows for meaningful analysis of performance differences across the socio-economic spectrum.
Why did the fee level structure change between 2021 and 2024?
The 2021 Index used k-means clustering to create five fee bands, which resulted in uneven group sizes with very small groups at the extremes. The 2024 approach was redesigned to ensure a more balanced distribution of ELPs across fee groups and to better capture performance differences, particularly at the lowest and highest ends of the fee spectrum. This led to splitting both Level 1 and Level 5 into low and high sub-groups.
Do the fee ranges account for inflation between 2021 and 2024?
The fee ranges were not simply adjusted for inflation. Instead, the 2024 Index adopted a new methodological approach focused on ensuring even distribution of ELPs across groups and adequately capturing performance gradients. This means the fee bands were restructured based on the distribution of actual fees in 2024 rather than applying an inflation adjustment to the 2021 bands.
How accurate are the ELP fee levels?
ELP fees reported by principals were validated through cross-checks with parent-reported data, which was available for 95% of ELPs in the final Thrive by Five 2024 sample. Nearly all ELPs (97%) charge fees, making this a widely applicable measure. While fees are an imperfect proxy, they meet key criteria: they meaningfully reflect socio-economic circumstances, allow valid comparisons over time, and can be replicated in future rounds of the Index.
What performance differences are seen across fee levels?
There are clear performance gradients across fee groups, with children in higher-fee ELPs generally showing higher average ELOM 4&5 scores. These gradients are visible both in total ELOM 4&5 scores and across individual ELOM 4&5 domains, which is why seven distinct fee groups were selected to adequately capture these differences.
