Child Support Grants in South Africa Leila Patel Centre for Social Development in Africa Faculty of Humanities

Child Support Grant Means tested non-contributory cash transfer – tax funded - introduced in 1998 Paid to the care-giver of children 0-18 years (R 250 or US$ 33.3) Care-giver is parent, relatives or non-relatives Grant follows the child Beneficiary numbers: 3million in 1995 to 14million in 2010 on grants 3.5% of GDP

South Africa Social Protection Strategy Social assistance – old age pensions, disability grants, child support grant (CSG) Complemented by public services: education, health, housing, basic services, public works, SMME’s Progressive taxation – redistribution In-kind programmes e.g. school feeding, price subsidies, VAT exemptions Challenges

The Policy Process Policy context – reconstruction and development GEAR – shift to market oriented strategy Gaps in social protection identified by research Consultative participatory policy process Mechanism for development of proposal was committee of enquiry

The Lund Committee for Child and Family Support Composition Terms of reference & time frame Research Policy options considered Non-conditional cash transfer preferred option Greatest poverty impact for poor and destitute children and families

Political Process Lund Report completed September 1996 Political and legislative process – 14 months 1 st applications – April 1998 Proposal released to parliament Public hearings – civil society participation Revision of proposals based on submissions Trade off between developing proposal quickly & long consultative process Political management by minister & public service

Implementation Project management team Legislation drafted State maintenance grants abolished CSG created Administrative & computer systems redesigned Agent for delivery 80% receive cash delivery via shops, government offices, old age homes, post offices Small percent through banks Link with financial services

Finance Alternative sources considered Initial cost R5 billion Increased spending on social welfare of 120% between Health 30%, education 26%, decreased defence of 48% Average growth of CSG 14% since 2006 R38.5 billion in 2012/2013 Transaction costs between R24 – R35 per payment

Implementation Challenges Human resources & infrastructure Lack of co-ordination between government departments Documentary requirements is a barrier e.g. birth registrations & proof of income Means test not adjusted for inflation Inconsistent application of regulations Lack of awareness of grants Government & civil society collaboration New conditionalities introduced in 2010

Impact Reach – 9.4 million CSG beneficiaries, 68% of total grant beneficiaries Grant is well targeted Reaches the poor, largely women who are black, 50% single parents 83% not employed Even split between male and female beneficiaries Take-up rate between 78 – 80%

Impact contd. Without CSG 48% would be poor, 24% would be ultra-poor Extension of CSG to 18yrs will reduce poverty gap by 28.3% Full take-up of all 3 grants could lower Gini coefficient by 3 percentage points 79% spent money on food 26% school fees 25% school uniforms 22% electricity

Impact contd. Decrease child hunger, positive nutritional impact in height-for-age gains Spinoffs for future earnings 60 – 130% Positive impacts on school attendance No positive association between CSG and teenage pregnancies

Critical Success Factors Credibility, leadership, expertise of Lund Committee Evidence based approach Confidence & trust of politicians helped consensus building Strong administrative capacity in grants delivery Window of opportunity in transition Innovation Ongoing government, political & electoral support for social protection floor