Childhood Poverty in South Africa

As many as 11 million South African children under the age of 18 (57%) are living in extreme poverty on less than R245 per month. ⁽¹⁾ Nearly 22% of children aged 1-9 years suffer stunting. ⁽²⁾ Analysis of data from 1995 and 1999 suggests that child poverty rates are increasing.

A Basic Income Grant of R100 per month would have unique advantages for children. Not only would children benefit directly from a universal grant, but they would also benefit indirectly. Households receiving additional income support from the BIG would be under less pressure to "stretch" child-specific grants to meet general household needs. Furthermore, the phased implementation plan for the BIG, outlined by the government's Committee of Inquiry (the Taylor Committee), gives priority to the needs of children.

Current Benefits for Children

The Constitution defines a child as a person under 18. It recognises children's rights to basic nutrition, shelter, health care and social services. South Africa has also signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states: "Every child has the right to a standard of living adequate for his/her development".

Government provides a number of benefits to children and families, including the Care Dependency Grant for severely disabled children, the Foster Care Grant for children in foster care, free primary health care, exemption from school fees, and primary school feeding schemes. The most widely accessed benefit is the Child Support Grant (CSG), introduced in April 1998. The CSG is a cash transfer to assist poor families to meet the basic needs of children up to the age of 7. The grant is means tested and proof of income must be provided. To be eligible, a care-giver must earn less than R800 a month in urban areas and R1100 a month in rural areas.

The CSG has had a positive impact on many families. However, millions of poor children are unable to access the CSG due to the age limit, the means test and a lack of proper documentation. In order for the government to fulfil its obligations to children, it must extend the CSG to all children under the age of 18 and remove the means test. The Taylor Committee recommended the immediate extension of the CSG as the first phase of implementing a BIG.

Local and international evidence shows that increasing family incomes through cash transfers or subsidies reduces poverty levels in households, and enhances the children's development, educational achievement and health status. Cash transfers provide effective, immediate relief for the needs of poor children.

However, poor households must share everything in order to survive -- even income earmarked for child support. Increasing overall household income therefore has a huge influence on all members of the household. As other members of a household are better able to meet their own basic needs, the chances of targeted grants reaching their intended beneficiaries also rises. So other interventions, such as the BIG, can enhance the effectiveness of child-specific benefits and improve access to services, such as health care and education.

Limitations to the Current CSG

Only 15% of the 14.3 million children living in poverty on less than R490 a month receive the CSG.

The main limitations of the current CSG are the age limit, the means test, administrative hurdles and the inadequate amount of the grant. The government proposes to increase the age limit for the CSG from 7 years to 14 years. ACESS and the BIG Coalition welcome this proposal. However, this age restriction will continue to discriminate against children from 14 to 18 years old.

The current CSG of R140 per month - R4.60 a day - is inadequate to meet the basic needs of a child. In addition, this small amount is usually distributed throughout poor households to feed the whole family, further undermining the effective benefit to the child. The practical effect of limiting CSG benefits (both in terms of the amount and the eligible age range) is that many households that might otherwise benefit decide that it is not worth the effort to overcome all of the administrative hurdles.

Means testing, in practice, is rarely used correctly, is administratively demanding, causes delays and can be demeaning. The costs of administering the means test could be better spent on providing a universal grant to more recipients. Poor people usually cannot meet the administrative requirements, and this excludes those most in need. The two-tier means test for the CSG (rural versus urban income thresholds) creates administrative complexity and could be discriminatory. ⁽³⁾

The current means test imposes a very low ceiling on eligibility. Many poor households are therefore excluded. The ceiling has not been increased since the grant's inception in 1998, although prices have risen by more than 30% since then.

The public's lack of awareness of the grants available, the application procedures and the complex requirements reduce access to the grants. ⁽⁴⁾ Problems of incorrect documentation delay or prevent application processes. Up to 51% of children ⁽⁵⁾ are without birth certificates and ID numbers. The removal of discretion for accepting alternative proof of identity prevents those most in need from receiving assistance, especially children who have been orphaned and children living in rural areas.

Lack of uniform standards, assessment guidelines and procedures within and between the departments cause discrepancies and subjective interpretation by officers. Lack of awareness of processing requirements and eligibility by welfare officials themselves also hinders applications. There is an obvious lack of inter-sectoral collaboration, essential to the development of a holistic approach to the provision of social security.

The obstacles to securing CSG benefits have discouraged applications and limited uptake rates across the country, especially in the poorer provinces. The National Department of Social Development initiated a massive public awareness and registration drive for the CSG and other grants in Oct 2002, and this has increased the uptake rates over the last few months. This shows what can be achieved with additional effort and co-ordination.

Improving the Impact of the CSG

The extension of the CSG to children under 14 years of age will greatly ease dire poverty for these children.

However, even if the Department of Social Development manages to reach all the poor children under 14 living in poverty, there will still be:

• •3 million 15 to 18 year-olds living in poverty without any assistance, of whom 2.5 million are living in extreme poverty.
• •60% of the adult population who are living in poverty, will continue to receive no assistance.

In their study of conditions in the Mt Frere district of the Eastern Cape, Sogaula et al (2002) concluded:

Extending the CSG to all children under 18 years and removing the means-test would, we suspect, make a very significant impact on poverty in the area. The removal of the means-test would have the effect of reducing the administrative burden and allowing existing resources to be deployed more effectively. (p.57)

These findings confirm those of the Taylor Committee, the government's expert panel on social security. In early 2002, the Taylor Committee recommended the immediate extension of the CSG to all children as an initial phase in the implementation of a universal Basic Income Grant. The committee also proposed the elimination of a means test to enhance access to social grants and to eliminate perverse incentives. After six years of study and consultation, the South African Law Commission Project Committee on the Review of the Child Care Act have also recommended that all children receive a grant and that families must be supported.

The abolition of the means test and the extension of eligibility for the CSG to age 18 are essential steps that can be taken almost immediately to reduce child poverty. The introduction of a BIG would further enhance the impact of the CSG by reducing the pressure on families to make CSG benefits meet the needs of everyone in the household.

This Fact Sheet incorporates material prepared by Solange Rosa, Teresa Guthrie and Patricia Martin for the Alliance for Children's Entitlement to Social Security.

¹ Streak J. 2002 Child Poverty Monitor, No. 1, IDASA.

² National Food Consumption Survey, 1999.

³ Bolani E et al. "Family Support" in Olivier MP (eds). 1999. Social Security Law: general principles.

⁴ Guthrie T. 2002. "Family Benefits" in An Introduction to Social Security Law.

⁵ Smart R. 2000. "Children living with HIV/AIDS in South Africa. A Rapid Appraisal." Interim National HIV/AIDS Care & Support Task Team.