Review of the Child Support Grant - Uses, Implementation and Obstacles June 2008 - DPME Evaluations
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Review
of the
Child
Support
Grant
Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
June 2008
social development
Department:
Social Development
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA COMMUNITY AGENCY
FOR SOCIAL ENQUIRYReview of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles © United Nations Children’s Fund, June 2008 This report was compiled and produced for the Department of Social Development, the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) by the Community Agency for Social Enquiry (C A S E), March 2008. CASE 31 Oxford Road, Forest Town, Johannesburg, 2193 P. O. Box 32882, Braamfontein, 2017 Telephone: +27 (11) 646 5922 Fax: +27 (11) 646 5919 E-mail: director@case.org.za Website: www.case.org.za Authors: Aislinn Delany, Zenobia Ismail, Lauren Graham, Yuri Ramkissoon Design and layout: Handmade Communications, design@handmadecc.co.za
Review of the
Child Support
Grant
Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
June 2008i Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
Acknowledgements
Our thanks to all the respondents who gave of their Our thanks also go to the United States Fund for
time to participate in the survey, as well as the partici- UNICEF and the United Kingdom of Great Britain
pants of the focus groups and the interviewees. and Northern Ireland (under the UNICEF Children
We would like to thank the members of the Techni- and Aids Regional Initiative – CARI) for the financial
cal Steering Committee, which consisted of representa- support provided for this study.
tives from the Department of Social Development, the Debbie Budlender’s assistance in providing com-
South African Social Security Agency and the United ments on this report is appreciated. Thanks also go to
Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) for their input dur- the C A S E fieldwork team who made the fieldwork
ing the research. component of this study possible.
Acronyms
ABET Adult Basic Education and Training
ACESS Alliance for Children’s Entitlement to Social Security
CASE Community Agency for Social Enquiry
CSG Child Support Grant
DSD Department of Social Development
EA Enumerator Area
ECD Early childhood development
EPRI Economic Policy Research Institute
ID Identity document
NGO Non-governmental organisation
SAPS South African Police Service
SASSA South African Social Security Agency
SMG State Maintenance Grant
ToR Terms of Reference
UNICEF United Nations Children’s FundAcronyms ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................................................................. iv
Acronyms.............................................................................................................................................................................. iv
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................................................................. v
Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology 1
Policy and Implementation Issues 1
Considering Eligibility and the Demographic Profile of Caregivers 2
Use of the CSG Within the Household 2
Access to Services 3
Implementation of and Barriers to Accessing the CSG 3
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Approach to the Study.................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1. Methodology 8
2.1.1. Review of Existing Studies 8
2.1.2. Household Survey 8
2.1.3. Interviews with Stakeholders 10
2.1.4. Focus Groups with Recipients and Non-recipients 10
2.2. Interpretation of the Findings 10
2.3. Structure of the Report 11
3. Policy and Implementation Issues............................................................................................................................... 12
3.1. Social Security Context for Children in South Africa 12
3.1.1. The Lund Committee for Child and Family Support 12
3.1.2. Introduction of the Child Support Grant 13
3.2. Implementation of the CSG 13
3.2.1. Role of CSG in Improving Childhood Nutrition in Vulnerable Households 14
3.3. CSG Policy Challenges 15
4. Considering Eligibility..................................................................................................................................................17
4.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Errors 18
4.1.1. Inclusion Errors 18
4.1.2. Exclusion Errors 19
5. Demographic Profile..................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.1. Household Profile 20
5.1.1. Household Size 20
5.1.2. Household Composition 21
5.1.3. Location of Household 22
5.1.4. Access to Services 22
5.1.5. Presence of Chronic Illness 24iii Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
5.2. Primary Caregiver Profile 24
5.2.1. Demographics 24
5.2.2. Education and Marital Status 25
5.2.3. Involvement in Work Activities 26
5.2.4. Profile of Young Children Under Two Years 27
5.3. Conclusion 28
6. Role of CSG in the Household..................................................................................................................................... 29
6.1. Income 29
6.2. Household Expenditure 31
6.3. Use of Grant 33
6.4. Financial Decision-making 35
6.5. Conclusion 35
7. Access to Services.......................................................................................................................................................... 37
7.1. Access to Education 37
7.1.1. Enrolment at School (Children Aged 7 to 17 Years) 37
7.1.2. Attendance at Crèche or School (Children Under Six Years) 40
7.2. Access to School Nutrition Programmes 40
7.2.1. Knowledge of and Access to Free Primary Health Care 41
7.2.2. Access to Additional Poverty Alleviation and Developmental Measures 42
7.3. Access to and Use of Preventive Health Care Measures 43
7.4. Conclusion 44
8. Implementation of the CSG......................................................................................................................................... 46
8.1. Application Process 46
8.1.1. Age at First Application 46
8.1.2. Time Period Between First Enquiry and Submission 49
8.1.3. Payment for Application 50
8.2. Implementation and Payment of Grant 51
8.2.1. Use of Payment Options 51
8.2.2. Assessment of Application Process and Implementation 54
8.3. Conclusion 55
9. Barriers for Non-Recipients......................................................................................................................................... 57
9.1. Reasons for Unsuccessful Applications 57
9.2. Reasons for Not Applying for the Grant 57
10. Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................... 62
11. References...................................................................................................................................................................... 65Executive Summary
Executive Summary
The South African Constitution enshrines the right income areas. Recipients of the CSG were favoured in
of all to access ‘appropriate social assistance’ from the the selection.
state if they are unable to support themselves and their
dependants. Social assistance refers specifically to an Policy and Implementation Issues
income transfer provided by government in the form The CSG was introduced in 1998 and consisted of a
of grants or financial awards to poor households or cash transfer of R100 per child for all children under
individuals. the age of seven years whose primary caregiver met the
The Child Support Grant (CSG) is the state’s largest criteria of the means test. Both the age criteria and the
social assistance programme in terms of the number cash value of the grant have since been raised, but the
of beneficiaries reached. The primary objective of the threshold of the means test has remained the same since
grant is to ensure that caregivers of young children liv- the introduction of the grant. The means test is intend-
ing in extreme poverty are able to access financial as- ed to ensure that the grant targeted those most in need.
sistance in the form of a cash transfer to supplement, Different qualifying thresholds are applied in formal
rather than replace, household income. urban areas and rural or informal areas. The rationale
Primary caregivers of children under the age of 14 for this differentiation is that those living in informal
years who meet the criteria of the means test are eligible and rural areas are disadvantaged in terms of access to
for the grant. The age limit for children will increase to education, health and employment opportunities, and
15 years in 2009. As of April 2008, the cash value of the the cut-off is therefore higher in these areas.
grant is R210 per month per child and this will increase The CSG was intended to form a contribution to
to R220 in October 2008. the costs of caring for young children (primarily their
In 2007 the Department of Social Development food requirements) and was to be provided in conjunc-
(DSD), the South African Social Security Agency (SAS- tion with other poverty alleviation and developmental
SA) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) measures. An important departure from previous so-
wished to review the implementation of the CSG. The cial assistance for children was the introduction of the
Community Agency for Social Enquiry (C A S E) was concept of the primary caregiver as the recipient of the
commissioned to conduct a study in low-income areas grant, rather than a parent, to allow the grant to ‘follow
in South Africa to examine the use of the CSG within the child’. There is growing evidence that social assist-
recipient households; the recipients’ experience of the ance has a positive impact on the lives of children in
application process and payment system; and the opera- poor households in South Africa.
tional barriers that impact on access to the grant. Access to adequate nutrition for young children is
of particular concern, as nutritional deprivation and
Methodology malnutrition in the early years have long-term negative
The study consisted of four components: A review of consequences on physical and cognitive development.
existing research relevant to the implementation of the The first two years of a child’s life form a critical win-
CSG; a survey of households in low-income areas that dow in which nutrition is highly influential for future
are potentially eligible for the CSG; interviews with growth. Cash transfers such as the CSG play an im-
SASSA officials and stakeholders; and focus group dis- portant role in enabling caregivers to access food of
cussions with adult recipients and non-recipients of the sufficient nutritional quality and variety to meet the
CSG. child’s needs. However, a recent study strongly suggests
The household survey formed the largest compo- that early and regular access to the CSG is required to
nent of the study and targeted approximately 2 700 have an effective and sustained impact on children’s
primary caregivers of children aged 0–13 years in low nutritional status. Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
Two areas of continued debate with regard to CSG lower levels of education and therefore lower levels of
policy are the extension of the age limit and the revision access to employment or income generation activities
of the targeting mechanism, i.e. the means test. than those who were not eligible. Children who benefit
from the CSG were more likely to live with their bio-
Considering Eligibility and the logical mother only than with their fathers only or with
Demographic Profile of Caregivers both or neither parent.
The grant appears to successfully target people living
in poor households. The eligibility of caregivers was Use of the CSG Within the Household
estimated based on reported income, and used to de- Households in this study had low levels of monthly
termine inclusion errors (those getting the grant who income. Levels of household income were lower in ru-
report incomes higher than the means test threshold) ral or informal urban areas than formal urban areas.
and exclusion errors (those who appear to be eligible for Where income is limited and per capita income is low,
the grant but are not receiving it). Such errors are to be any grant money coming into the household, such as
expected in targeted programmes, and both inclusion the CSG, is likely to be pooled to cover general house-
and exclusion errors were within internationally ac- hold expenses rather than being spent solely to main-
ceptable ranges. While the inclusion error or ‘leakage’ tain the targeted child. This study found that just over
in these low income areas was relatively small (13%), half of the recipients (51%) reported pooling the grant
more attention needs to be given to coverage or errors money with other household income, although this was
of exclusion (21%) to ensure that those who are eligible likely to be an under-estimate as recipients were aware
for the CSG are able to access the assistance to which that the grant is intended for the targeted child. Such
they are entitled. practices dilute the benefits of the CSG for the targeted
Caregivers who are eligible for the grant tended to child, but this would be relieved to an extent if the grant
have lower levels of access to services and amenities were to be extended to all children.
such as running water or a toilet inside their dwellings. On average the CSG accounted for 40% of reported
Access to such facilities was lower in rural or informal household income. Dependence on the CSG was even
areas, suggesting that the differentiation between types higher when the personal incomes of the primary care
of areas in the means test is justified. Among eligible givers were considered. The CSG therefore acts as a life-
caregivers, a higher proportion of those living in rural line for many households in the face of high levels of
or informal areas are recipients of the CSG than those unemployment and limited opportunities for economic
living in formal urban areas. development.
The study found that households in which the re- Food formed the largest category of expenditure
spondent was receiving the CSG tend to be larger than across all groups, but was higher among those eligi-
those not receiving it, whether the latter are eligible or ble for the grant. CSG recipients were most likely to
not. At present the means test does not take into ac- report increased spending on food since receiving the
count household size or the number of children being grant, with school fees, uniforms and electricity also
supported by the primary caregiver’s income. being mentioned. This is in line with the growing
As expected, almost all of the primary caregivers body of evidence that the CSG is used for essentials
were women. The majority of caregivers in low income such as food, basic services and education-related
areas were African. This suggests that while the CSG costs.
has gone a long way in addressing the racial discrimina- In addition, CSG recipients were more likely to have
tion that existed prior to 1994, inequality along racial bank accounts and some form of savings than those
lines continues to exist. CSG recipients tended to have who are eligible but not receiving the grant, prob-Executive Summary
ably because the grant money can be paid into a bank Child beneficiaries of the CSG were more likely to at-
account. tend a crèche or preschool than children of the same age
CSG recipients reported being involved in financial group who were not receiving the grant. Approximately
decision-making, either alone or jointly with others, 70% of children aged seven to 13 years had access to
and therefore generally had control over how the grant free food through the school nutrition programme. This
is spent. was particularly the case amongst children in rural or
informal urban areas. Access was higher amongst CSG
Access to Services beneficiaries (74%) than amongst non-beneficiaries in
Cash transfers alone are not sufficient to reduce pov- the same age group (62%).
erty, and must be accompanied by other poverty al- Almost all caregivers were aware of the availability
leviation programmes and developmental initiatives. of preventive health care measures and free primary
Such initiatives in South Africa include access to free health care for children under the age of six years.
basic health care for children under six years; school Three-quarters had taken their child to a public health
nutrition programmes; access to school fee exemptions; care facility the last time he or she was sick. Ability to
and, increasingly, no-fee schools. Other measures that access public clinics was high, although the required
do not target the child specifically but which aim to im- travel times were longer in rural and informal urban
prove household wellbeing include access to free basic areas. Reported access to preventive health measures,
services, housing subsidies, public works programmes such as growth monitoring and vaccinations, was also
and Adult Basic Education and Training (ABET). Levels high among young children. Participation in other pro-
of access to such measures varied greatly among par- grammes, however, such as registering as indigent with
ticipants in this study. the municipality in order to obtain assistance with basic
School attendance is compulsory in South Africa for services, accessing the public works programmes, ap-
children aged seven to 15 years, and the level of school plying for housing subsidies and registering for ABET
enrolment was high for this age group. This was less programmes was low. It is not clear if this is due to a
likely to be the case for older children, with reported lack of knowledge on the part of caregivers or limited
attendance at school falling to 85% for children aged 17 provision of these programmes. Receipt of the CSG
years. In approximately two-thirds of cases, households should act as a gateway for caregivers to access other
reported paying school fees for children aged seven to poverty alleviation measures, and greater communica-
17 years. tion about these programmes is required.
Surprisingly, this study did not find that recipients
of CSG are less likely to pay school fees, despite gov- Implementation of and Barriers to
ernment policy that recipients of poverty-linked state Accessing the CSG
social grants are not required to pay such fees. However, CSG recipients were asked about their experiences of
the monetary value of fees paid by households for CSG the application process, while those who were not re-
beneficiaries was lower than for children not receiving ceiving the grant were asked why. Overall, those who
the grant. had been successful in accessing the grant were rela-
Knowledge of exemptions and how to apply for them tively positive about the process, but a number of areas
appeared to be low. No-fee schools were in the proc- of challenges require further attention.
ess of being implemented at the time of this study, and The most common challenges were difficulties in ob-
dedicated research would be required to fully assess taining the required documentation for the application.
the impact of amendments to the national norms and These include delays in obtaining or replacing birth cer-
standards for school funding in recent years. tificates and identity documents; the time and travel Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
required to collect such documentation, and challenges include those made in the early years of the imple-
faced by non-biological guardians in accessing the cor- mentation of the CSG. Payment processing times re-
rect documentation for children now in their care. This ported by caregivers of children under two years were
makes the intention that the grant ‘follows the child’ shorter, with almost half reporting payment within two
difficult to implement in practice. months.
Early access to the CSG is important because very Three-quarters of recipients reported living within
young children are particularly vulnerable to the effects half an hour’s travel time of the pay point or facility
of nutritional deprivation and malnutrition. It was en- from which they collect their grant, although travel
couraging to note that a high proportion of caregivers times were shorter in urban areas. Most recipients re-
of young children had first enquired about the grant ported collecting the grant as cash rather than through
when the child was less than six months old. However, the banking system, with recipients living in urban ar-
the time taken to obtain and submit the required docu- eas more likely to use the banking option. Reasons for
mentation (birth certificates in particular) and for the not using the banking facility included the concern that
payment to be processed and to reach the caregiver the bank charges involved would eat into an already
meant that caregivers may only receive the grant several modest grant; the lack of access to banks (particularly
months after the first enquiry. in rural areas); and the costs or difficulties of travel-
Receipt of the CSG was relatively low in the first six ling to the bank. These concerns should be borne in
months of a child’s life, but increased in the second six mind when considering ways in which to increase the
months and in the second year. Given the important efficiency of the payment system.
role the CSG can play in facilitating access to nutrition Areas that require further attention in order to im-
early in life – and particularly as children move from prove the efficiency and effectiveness of the CSG system
breast milk to solids in the first three to six months include the following:
– such delays are likely to further disadvantage vulner- • The CSG is intended as one of a ‘basket’ of services
able young children. aimed at reducing poverty holistically. Receipt of
A third (30%) of caregivers of children under the the CSG should act as a form of gateway or referral
age of 14 years submitted their application within a to other poverty alleviation programmes in a more
week of their first enquiry about the CSG, but a simi- co-ordinated and pro-active manner than is cur-
lar proportion (35%) reported that applying took be- rently the case.
tween one and three months. The most common reason • While a number of poverty alleviation policies have
given for a delay of longer than three months was lack been implemented to assist vulnerable families, fur-
of or difficulties accessing documentation. This was ther communication about these programmes is re-
more of a challenge in rural or informal urban areas. quired to ensure that caregivers are able to access
There was no evidence of recipients having to make these benefits at a local level. This would include
payments in order to apply, although applicants did greater co-ordination between programmes to refer
incur associated costs such as travel. In the focus group eligible participants from one to another.
discussions, participants voiced frustration at the lack • Difficulties with documentation and administra-
of communication by officials regarding the status of tive barriers remain a challenge in the application
applications. process. The current requirement that official docu-
Approximately 10% of caregivers of children under mentation is needed for identification means that
14 years of age reported that payment of the grant took administrative delays in obtaining the documenta-
less than one month, while another quarter received tion delays access to the grant. Consideration should
their payment within two months. These applications be given to alternative forms of identification.Executive Summary
• Improved co-ordination between the different administrative burden of the means test for the
stakeholders involved in the process is necessary, applicants.
as is the provision of more easily accessible services. → Further consideration needs to be given to the ex-
A practical example of this is increasing the reach of tent to which the spouse’s income is available to
mobile ‘one stop’ units in rural areas, which would contribute to the upkeep of the child, especially
allow eligible applicants to submit their application since spouses may not live in the same household
and receive a letter of approval within a day. Fur- as the child.
ther assessment of the impact of such mobile units • Practical measures to improve access to the grant
would be needed to ensure they were effective. The among caregivers of young children should be con-
use of alternative forms of identification would also sidered. Examples include education campaigns and
improve the application process. posters in communities and at hospitals or ante-
• A review of the means test is required to avoid ex- natal clinics; and facilities at hospitals or clinics to
cluding those who are eligible for the grant. Issues to assist with registration of births.
be taken into consideration include the following: • Children aged 14 will be able to access the CSG
→ Increasing the income threshold in line with as from January 2009, but there is as yet no firm
inflation. plan to roll out to older children. Extension of the
→ Taking into account the number of children be- grant to this age group will assist in fulfilling the
ing supported by the caregiver’s income. How- government’s mandate to protect the rights of all
ever this needs to be done without adding to the children.Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles 1. Introduction Many of the approximately 18,2-million children under Act of the same year transferred responsibility for the the age of 18 years in South Africa in July 2006 (Chil- management, administration and payment of social dren’s Institute, 2008), were living in poverty. assistance from the provincial Departments of Social In that year, 68% or 12,3-million children lived in Development to the newly established South African households with a reported income of less than R1 200 Social Security Agency (SASSA). per month (Children’s Institute, 2008). Since income The Child Support Grant (CSG) is the state’s largest facilitates access to nutrition, basic services and educa- social assistance programme in terms of the number of tion, such low levels of income impact on the ability of beneficiaries reached, and is currently the key poverty caregivers to meet children’s basic needs. alleviation strategy targeting children. The primary ob- Levels of child poverty in South Africa vary across jective of the grant is to ensure that caregivers of young the provinces. A study mapping living standards and children living in extreme poverty are able to access deprivation experienced by children (based on the 2001 financial assistance in the form of a cash transfer to Census data) found that nine of ten municipalities in supplement rather than replace household income. As which child deprivation is highest are in rural East- of April 2008, the cash value of the grant is R210 per ern Cape; and the other is in KwaZulu-Natal (Barnes, month per child, and this will increase to R220 in Oc- Wright, Noble & Dawes, 2007). tober 2008. The criteria for accessing the grant are as The provinces of Mpumalanga, Limpopo and North follows: West, all of which have relatively large rural populations • The child and primary caregiver must be a South and limited access to employment, also tend to have African citizen or permanent resident and must be high levels of child poverty. Levels of deprivation are resident in South Africa. lower in the wealthier, more urbanised provinces of the • The applicant must be the primary caregiver of the Western Cape and Gauteng. The legacies of apartheid, child/children concerned. current high levels of unemployment and the impact of • The child/children must be under the age of 14 years the HIV and AIDS epidemic on families all contribute (this will increase to 15 years in 2009). to South Africa’s high levels of child poverty. • The applicant and spouse must meet the require- South Africa has done much to address the status of ments of the means test. children since 1994. The government has ratified several • The applicant must be able to produce his or her 13 international children’s rights charters and introduced digit bar coded identity document (ID) and the 13 new legislation aimed at promoting the well-being of digit birth certificate of the child. children. Children’s rights are enshrined in the Bill of • The applicant cannot apply for more than six non- Rights in the South African Constitution. Section 27 of biological children. the Bill of Rights states that, ‘Everyone has the right to have access to … social security, including, if they are un- The CSG is a targeted grant intended for those most able to support themselves and their dependants, appro- in need of support. Applicants must therefore provide priate social assistance’. The state is therefore obliged to information about their income so that SASSA officials address child poverty by supporting caregivers unable to can determine whether or not an applicant’s total in- care for their children adequately because of poverty. come is less than a stipulated amount. The Social Assistance Act of 2004 provides the na- For the CSG the means test requirements are cur- tional legislative framework for the provision of social rently as follows: assistance in the form of grants or financial awards 1. An income of less than R1 100 per month if living in from government to those who are unable to support a rural area or in an informal dwelling in an urban themselves. The South African Social Security Agency area.
Introduction
2. An income of less than R800 a month if living in a In 2007 the Community Agency for Social Enquiry
formal dwelling in an urban area. (C A S E) was commissioned to conduct a study in low-
income areas to consider the use of the CSG within
The CSG was introduced in 1998, and by Septem- recipient households; the beneficiaries’ experience of
ber 2007 was reaching more than 8-million CSG ben- the application process and payment system; and the
eficiaries. The Department of Social Development operational barriers that impact on access to the grant.
(DSD), SASSA and the United Nations Children’s Fund The study had a special focus on children up to the age
(UNICEF) now wish to review the implementation of of two.
the CSG, and to identify ways to improve efficiency and The conclusions of this study should be read in con-
effectiveness. An important component of this is to un- junction with other studies commissioned by the DSD,
derstand implementation of the grant from the point of SASSA and UNICEF to inform decisions regarding the
view of those applying for and receiving it. improvement of service delivery and efficacy of the CSG.
. http://www.sassa.gov.za/content.asp?id=1000000519, accessed 3
January 2008. Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
2. Approach to the Study
The aim of this study is to review the implementation In this study, therefore, the term beneficiary refers to
and use of the CSG and to examine operational issues the child, while recipient is used to refer to the primary
that hinder access. More specifically, the study consid- caregiver who receives the CSG on behalf of the child.
ers the following themes with regard to the CSG:
• Demographic profile of both households and the 2.1.1. Review of Existing Studies
primary caregiver. The review of existing studies relevant to the CSG ran
• Household dynamics regarding utilisation of the concurrently with the preparation for implementation
CSG and decision-making on how it is spent. of the survey. The aim of the review was to provide a
• General implementation challenges and operational context to the study and to build on existing work. The
barriers to access. review covered studies previously commissioned by the
• An additional focus on children under two years. DSD as well those conducted by academic institutions
and other research organisations.
2.1. Methodology
2.1.2. Household Survey
The Terms of Reference (ToR) for this study specified This consisted of a national household survey of 2 675
that a household survey should be undertaken. It was respondents.
originally suggested that the sample for this survey
should focus on those receiving the CSG and should a. Sampling Strategy for Survey
draw on the information contained in the DSD’s so- To be able to study both the use of the grant in re-
cial grant and pension system (SOCPEN) database, cipient households and the barriers experienced by
which contains information relating to social grant those not receiving the CSG, it was necessary to de-
payments. However, there were concerns about ac- velop a sampling strategy that targeted those most
cess to this database due to issues of confidentiality. likely to be eligible for the grant, whether or not they
In addition, some of the themes to be addressed by the were receiving it. The study was restricted to areas in
study as outlined in the ToR required the inclusion of which households were most likely to meet the eligi-
non-recipients. bility criteria. It was assumed that, given the relatively
The study design was therefore changed to include high coverage of the CSG, a stratified random sam-
primary caregivers who receive the grant and those who ple which targeted lower income areas would include
do not, and consisted of the following components: sufficient recipient households, while also providing
1. A review of existing research relevant to the imple- access to a smaller number of low-income non-recipi-
mentation of the CSG. ent households.
2. A survey of households in low-income areas that were To achieve this, the sampling strategy for this study
potentially eligible for the CSG (regardless of whether consisted of the following steps:
or not the households are recipients of the CSG). 1. Data from Statistics South Africa’s Census 2001 were
3. Interviews with governmental officials, representa- used as the overall sampling frame. While these data
tives of payment agencies and civil society organisa- are now quite old, the census remains the most com-
tions familiar with the implementation of the CSG prehensive sampling framework publicly available.
4. Focus groups with adult recipients and non-recipi- 2. Two methods of determining Enumerator Areas
ents of the CSG. (EAs) for inclusion in the study were used. The first
calculated the average monthly household income
Although the primary caregiver receives the CSG on from the Census data and used an average of R1 400
behalf of the child, the child is the intended recipient. as a cut-off for the definition of low income areas toApproach to the Study
be included in the study. The cut-off was set slightly was sent to the household by relatives living elsewhere.
higher than the means test threshold to account for The following screening criteria were used to select
inflation, and because it is widely acknowledged that adult respondents:
respondents under-report their income in surveys. a. Only households containing children aged 0–13
The second method involved selecting those ar- years (the age group covered by the CSG) were in-
eas where more than three-quarters of households cluded in the survey. Households that did not con-
fell into the four lowest income categories (i.e. the tain children in this age group were substituted
average monthly household income was between with households in the same EA that did fulfil this
R0–R1 600 per month). criterion.
There was very little difference between the num- b. If there was only one primary caregiver in the house-
bers of EAs that fell into these two categories and hold receiving a CSG, this caregiver was automati-
therefore a combination of the two methods (that cally interviewed.
is, EAs that fell into at least one of these categories) c. If there was more than one caregiver in the house-
was used to define the sample frame. hold receiving the CSG, the caregiver to be inter-
3. The sample frame of EAs was then stratified by viewed was randomly selected using a random
province, area type (areas defined as ‘sparse’, rec- number grid.
reational, industrial and institutions were excluded) d. If there was no caregiver receiving the CSG living in
and income. EAs were classified as high, medium that household, the household members were asked
or low income areas by calculating the average to identify the primary caregiver(s) in the house-
household income for each area and splitting the hold. If there was more than one primary caregiver,
set of incomes into tertiles (i.e. three equally sized the random selection method was used to select the
groups consisting of the areas with the lowest third, respondent.
the middle third and the highest third of average
incomes). To avoid confusion, respondents were asked to
refer to one child only when discussing their experi-
Randomly selected areas were replaced when they ences of the application or payment process. The child
were seen to be obviously outside of the means test in- was randomly selected by the interviewer using a ran-
come limit. A total of 19 of the 389 originally selected dom number grid. Caregivers were asked to provide
EAs were substituted, either because they were high- additional information in respect of children under
income areas or because the nature of the area had two years in the household. Some challenges were en-
changed over time and was no longer residential. countered in obtaining information about children
who were cared for by members of the household
b. Selection of Respondents other than the caregiver being interviewed.
The selection of respondents targeted CSG recipients The survey instrument was developed in consulta-
and only included non-recipient primary caregivers tion with representatives of DSD, SASSA and UNICEF
where no CSG recipients were living in the household. and was tested in field. Changes were made in response
Non-recipient households are therefore those house- to feedback from this pilot.
holds where no adult living in the household is directly
receiving the CSG, although in some cases the grant c. Training and data collection
The data collection for this study took place in October
and November 2007. Two-day training workshops for
. A household was defined as those who share economic resources and
sleep under the same roof at least four times a week. fieldworkers were held in four provinces. Local fieldwork-10 Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
ers were recruited from the national C A S E database identify the provinces in which the focus groups would
and conducted interviews in the language of the area. be held. Gauteng, Limpopo and Mpumalanga had the
Fieldworkers worked in teams under supervisors and highest CSG take-up rates in 2005, while North West
checks were conducted to assure the quality of the data. and Western Cape had the lowest. Two provinces with
high take-up and two with low take-up rates were se-
d. Analysis lected. KwaZulu-Natal was included as it has the largest
The data were weighted to reflect the distribution of the child population and is largely rural. Focus groups for
population. The weighted data were analysed using the this study therefore were held in the following areas:
survey analysis routines in Stata 9. Confidence intervals • Gauteng – Orange Farm (urban, mixed language)
were calculated and differences that were significant at • KwaZulu-Natal – Xolo (rural, Zulu)
a 95% confidence level (p value of less than 0,05) are • Limpopo – Ga Mothiba (rural, Pedi)
reported. • North West – Lethlabile (urban, Sotho)
• Western Cape – Mitchell’s Plain (urban,
2.1.3. Interviews with Stakeholders Afrikaans/English)
In addition to beneficiaries, stakeholders who could
provide insight into operational issues were also inter- Three groups were held in each province as follows:
viewed. These were: 1. Primary caregivers not receiving the CSG (referred
• SASSA customer care or operations officials at re- to as the ‘non-recipients’ group).
gional offices who are familiar with the implementa- 2. Primary caregivers age of 40 years or younger who
tion of the CSG in Gauteng, Limpopo, North West, are receiving the CSG (‘younger recipients’ group).
KwaZulu-Natal and Western Cape. 3. Primary caregivers older than 40 years who are re-
• Representatives from non-governmental organisa- ceiving the CSG (‘older recipients’ group).
tions (NGOs) in the children’s sector, namely the
Alliance for Children’s Entitlement to Social Secu- A total of 15 focus groups were conducted in the
rity (ACESS), the Children’s Institute, the Children’s language of the participants.
Rights Centre, the Children in Distress Network,
Umvoti Aid and Johannesburg Child Welfare. 2.2. Interpretation of the Findings
Interviews with SASSA officials focused on the suc- It is important to note that the sample for this study
cesses and challenges of implementation, strategies to consists of primary caregivers of children aged 0–13
address gaps and resources available. Interviews with years living in areas with an average income of less than
NGO stakeholders focused on their experiences of the R1 600, rather than CSG beneficiaries in general. The
CSG, barriers encountered and policy suggestions. data presented below is based on interviews with one
primary caregiver per household. Primary caregivers
2.1.4. Focus Groups with Recipients were asked to provide additional information about
and Non-recipients other members of the household in two instances:
The final component was a series of focus groups held in 1. Information relating to education (i.e. school attend-
five different provinces in order to obtain more detailed ance, payment of school fees) of all children under
and nuanced information that could be used to explain the age of 18 years in the household.
some of the survey findings.
Take-up figures calculated for the Children’s Insti-
. Take up refers to the proportion of eligible children who are benefiting
tute’s South African Child Gauge (2006) were used to from the grant.Approach to the Study 11
2. Where there were children under the age of two the presentation of the findings. Chapter 4 considers is-
years in the household, additional information was sues of targeting by outlining the method used to deter-
asked regarding the implementation of the grant and mine eligibility in this study and discussing the level of
access to preventive health care services. inclusion and exclusion errors. Chapter 5 continues to
look at targeting by outlining the demographic profile
Challenges were experienced in obtaining informa- of the households and primary caregivers in this study.
tion on all children under the age of two, especially This is followed by a chapter that considers the use of
where the child was in the care of another member of the CSG within households and decision-making with
the household. The results pertaining specifically to regard to the spending of the grant. Chapter 7 discusses
children under two years should therefore be read with levels of knowledge of and access to other poverty al-
a degree of caution. leviation services and initiatives that are intended to
complement the CSG. Chapter 8 covers implementation
2.3. Structure of the Report issues experienced by those who receive the grant. It is
followed by a discussion of barriers preventing potential
The following chapter focuses on policy and implemen- beneficiaries from accessing the grant. The report ends
tation issues, and provides an overview of the rationale with a chapter on conclusions and recommendations
and implementation of the CSG to provide context for for improving service delivery.12 Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
3. Policy and Implementation Issues
The South African Constitution enshrines the right 3.1.1. The Lund Committee for Child
of all to access ‘appropriate social assistance’ from the and Family Support
state if they are unable to support themselves and their The Lund Committee for Child and Family Support was
dependants. Social assistance refers specifically to an established by the Department of Welfare’s MinMEC (a
income transfer provided by government in the form high-level committee of national and provincial welfare
of grants or financial awards to poor households or ministers) in 1995 to investigate policy options for the
individuals. support of children and families. The Committee was
The following chapter provides an overview of the to undertake a review of the existing system of state sup-
introduction and implementation of the CSG, and high- port to children and families across all departments; in-
lights selected policy issues of relevance for this study. vestigate the possibility of increasing access to financial
support through the private maintenance system; ex-
plore alternative social security options as well as other
3.1. Social Security Context for
anti-poverty, economic empowerment and capacity-
Children in South Africa
building strategies; and develop approaches for effective
The introduction of social assistance in South Af- targeting of programmes for children and families.
rica was intended primarily as a safety net for poor The Lund Committee was given six months to com-
whites. Social assistance in general had expanded to plete its work, and at the end of this period proposed
cover all citizens by the 1960s, but the levels of grants that the SMG be phased out and a new ‘child support
and administrative procedures remained racially benefit’ be introduced.
discriminatory. The Committee’s deliberations were constrained by
With the first democratic elections in 1994 came an the fact that there would be no significant increase in
express commitment to expand social assistance to all the welfare budget despite the increase in the number
South Africans on the basis of need. The White Paper of children to be targeted.
on Social Welfare of 1997 emphasised the need to move Although originally in favour of universal access
from the welfare model to a developmental approach, for children in a chosen age group, the final proposals
and identified a reformed social security system as an included the use of a simple means test for targeting
important pillar of this approach. purposes. The Committee recommended that the new
The primary grant for children at the time, the State grant cover children under the age of nine years, which
Maintenance Grant (SMG), was intended to provide was the same age group covered by early childhood de-
support to mothers and their children where the spouse velopment programmes. The focus was on the special
was no longer present. The grant covered children aged vulnerability of young children and the critical impor-
0–17 years and in some cases provided for the caregiver tance of adequate nutrition in the early years (Lund,
as well. Access to the SMG was still racially biased in 2008). It was argued that young children could not be
the early 1990s and there were concerns about the fi- easily reached through other means such as schools,
nancial implications of expanding access to the SMG and that malnutrition at a young age has lasting and
as it stood. It was therefore necessary to review social often irreversible developmental effects. The Commit-
assistance provisions for children and families in South tee recommended a progressive expansion of the age
Africa. threshold as resources became available.
. The Department of Welfare was later renamed the Department of Social
Development.
. This definition is found on the SASSA website (http://www.sassa.gov.
za/content.asp?id=1000000502, 18.02.08), while the Social Assistance Act . Due to financial considerations other smaller age ranges were also
of 2004 simply defines social assistance as a social grant. proposed.Policy and Implementation Issues 13
The proposed monetary value of the CSG was set The means test was intended to ensure that the grant
at R70, based on calculations of the amount needed to targeted those most in need. It differentiated between
cover the basic food requirement for a child. This was formal urban areas and rural or informal areas on
much lower than the value of the SMG. The intention the basis that those living in the latter should have a
was that the CSG would form a contribution to the costs higher threshold to compensate for the disadvantages
of caring for young children, and would be one com- they faced in terms of access to education, health and
ponent of a package of support for poor families such employment opportunities.
as free primary health care, nutritional support, early Initial take-up of the grant was slow and this led to
childhood development programmes and the housing changes in the regulations. The means test was now to
subsidy. Such integration, however, can be difficult to be applied to personal income (or joint income if the
achieve in practice. applicant was married) rather than household income,
An important departure from the SMG was the as household income may not be equitably distributed
introduction of the concept of the ‘primary caregiver’ amongst household members. With the exception of the
as the recipient of the grant, rather than a parent. The need to provide the caregiver’s identity document and
SMG was based on a model of a nuclear family that the child’s birth certificate, the other conditions men-
was not relevant to many South Africans, and did not tioned above were removed. This was done in recogni-
take into account the disruption of family life that had tion of the fact that varying levels of service provision
taken place during the apartheid years. The new CSG meant that the specified services were not always read-
was intended to ‘follow the child’ and to allow for the ily accessible, and that children and their caregivers
grant to be paid to the caregivers of any children living should not be penalised for this inequitable access.
in poverty, whether or not they lived with their biologi-
cal parents.
3.2. Implementation of the CSG
3.1.2. Introduction of the Child Since 1998 the government has made a concerted effort
Support Grant to increase the reach of the CSG and the number of
Some adjustments were made to the Lund Committee’s child beneficiaries has risen dramatically. In September
proposals as a result of lobbying from civil society or- 2007 there were over 8-million beneficiaries of the CSG,
ganisations and consideration of the proposals by the with the largest proportion of beneficiaries being found
Department of Welfare. The CSG introduced in 1998 in the populous and poor provinces of KwaZulu-Natal
took the form of a cash transfer of R100 per child for (25%) and the Eastern Cape (19%).
all children under the age of seven years whose primary There is evidence that social assistance has a posi-
caregiver met the criteria of the means test. The follow- tive impact on the lives of children in poor households.
ing conditions were attached: However, only a limited number of studies focusing on
• The caregiver’s identity document and child’s birth the effect of the CSG on children have been conducted,
certificate would be required, as well as proof that and these tend to show associations rather than direct
the child was immunised. causal links. Further longitudinal studies are required
• Beneficiaries should not refuse to accept employ- to provide evidence of impact.
ment or to participate in an income-generating Research by the Economic Policy Research Institute
project without good reason. (EPRI) suggests that South Africa’s system of social se-
• Applicants should have made an effort to secure curity has been successful in reducing poverty, both in
maintenance from the parent(s) of the child where absolute terms – the numbers of people living in pov-
possible. erty – and in relative terms, by reducing the average14 Review of the Child Support Grant: Uses, Implementation and Obstacles
poverty gap (Samson et al, 2004). The same research Stunting (or low height for age as a result of chron-
suggests that households that receive social grants ic malnutrition) is associated with poverty and poor
rather than other income streams alone tend to spend socio-economic conditions, and may be irreversible in
more on basics like food, fuel, housing and household older children.
operations. A study on developmental potential in the first five
A study by Budlender & Woolard (2007) on the years among children in developing countries found
impact of the CSG and old age pensions on children’s that prevalence of early childhood stunting and the
schooling and work in South Africa suggests that the number of people living in absolute poverty are both
grant has some effect in encouraging school attendance closely associated with poor cognitive and education-
amongst direct beneficiaries. The authors noted that al performance in children. This is likely to contrib-
the effect is small in terms of percentage points, but ute to the intergenerational transmission of poverty
this is to be expected given the already high overall (Grantham-McGregor et al, 2007).
enrolment rates. Faber and Wenhold (2007) note in a study on nutri-
Modelling for this 2007 study also showed that en- tion in contemporary South Africa that the prevalence
rolment of children who are not direct CSG beneficiar- of stunting and being underweight increases signifi-
ies is more likely when another child in the household cantly from the first to second year of life. The period
is a direct CSG recipient. Other studies lend support six to 24 months, in particular, ‘carries a great risk of
to the association between receipt of the CSG and in- growth faltering and malnutrition, because of the inad-
creased school attendance (Samson et al, 2004; Case et equate nutritional quality of complementary foods and
al, 2005). increased risk of infections due to decline in breastfeed-
The CSG has also been found to boost early child- ing’. This is therefore a critical window period for child
hood nutrition (as measured by the children’s height- development.
for-age), which could contribute to higher productivity A study on infant and young child feeding trends in
and wages later in life (Agüero et al, 2007). SA (2005) uses data from the 2003 Demographic Health
In terms of use of the grant, a study conducted by Survey to note that while up to 80% of South African
C A S E in 2000 found that three-quarters of benefici- mothers initiate breastfeeding, only 12% of infants are
aries reported that the CSG was their main source of exclusively breastfed from 0–3 months.
financial support (Kola et al, 2000). Caregivers receiv- This suggests that it is necessary to ensure that care
ing the CSG indicated that the greatest impact of the givers living in poverty can access nutritional com-
grant was on their improved ability to provide food. plementary foods for their children from birth. Cash
This response was significantly more likely in rural ar- transfers such as the CSG have an important role to
eas, whereas in formal urban areas – where basic needs play in enabling caregivers in the household to access
are more likely to have been met – greater emphasis was food of sufficient nutritional quality and variety to meet
placed on its use in paying for education. the child’s needs.
However, there is evidence that limited or late access
3.2.1. Role of CSG in Improving to the grant reduces the impact on child development.
Childhood Nutrition in Vulnerable A recent study found that regular receipt of the CSG for
Households
Access to adequate nutrition for young children is . ‘National Food Consumption Survey – Fortification Baseline (NFCS
– FB): the knowledge, attitude, behaviour and procurement regarding
of particular concern, as nutritional deprivation and fortified foods, a measure of hunger and the anthropometric and selected
micronutrient status of children aged 1–9 years and women of childbearing
malnutrition in the early years have long-term negative age: South Africa, 2005’ (2005, unpublished). University of Stellenbosch
and Tygerberg Academic Hospital, South Africa. Cited by UNICEF,
consequences on physical and cognitive development. Pretoria.You can also read
