Transcript Slide 1

Impact evaluation of South Africa’s
Child Support Gant on Child
Protection: A Qualitative Review
George Laryea-Adjei, UNICEF
Stephen Devereux, IDS
Maureen Motepe, Dept of Soc Dev
25 May 2011
1
Background
2
Historical background
• In 1994, the new government inherited a
fragmented social security system, that was
to the benefit of the minority white population.
• The old age grant (since 1928) was highly
discriminatory until 1993 when benefit levels
became equal among all races.
• Infrastructure for administering the old age
grant proved useful in the introduction and
subsequent expansion of other social
assistance schemes in the post-apartheid era
3
Legal background
• A progressive constitution in 1996 included
provisions for the right to social security:
– everyone has the right to have access to
social security including, if they are unable to
support themselves and their dependants, …’
S.27 (1) (c)
– ‘state must take reasonable legislative and
other measures, within its available
resources, to achieve the progressive
realisation of each of these rights’ S.27(2)
4
The child support grant:
• The child support grant is the largest social
assistance programme in South Africa by
number of recipients (over 10 million children)
• The grant is means-tested
• The means test threshold for the child support
grant is set at 10 times the value of the grant
8
Qualifying Requirements
• The primary care giver must be a South African citizen
or permanent resident.
• Both the applicant and the child must reside in South
Africa.
• The child/children must be under the age of 18 years.
• The applicant and spouse must meet the requirements
of the means test.
• The applicant cannot apply for more than six non
biological children.
• The child can not be cared for in state institution.
9
Coverage of Child Support Grant
12,000,000
10,336,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
150,366
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012*
10
CSG Progression
• Gradual extension by age:
–
–
–
–
–
2003 to children under 9
2004, to children under 11
2005 to children under 14
January 2009 to children up to 15 years
November 2009 staggered extension to include children up to
the age of 18 years.
– January 2010 to children up to 16 years
– January 2011 all eligible children under 18.
• The 2009 amended regulations requires that proof of
school attendance be submitted to SASSA within a
month of approval of the grant.
11
Summary Statistics
Grant
Coverage- End March 2011
10, 420, 282
Grant Value
R260
Grant Increases Apr 07-Apr 11
R200-R260
Income Threshold (means-test)
-single
-married
R31 200
R62 400
12
Spending on CSG
13
Spending on CSG
Expenditure (in R billion)
Child Support Expenditure
100 000
90 000
80 000
70 000
60 000
50 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Child Support Expenditure
7 690
11 431
14 143
17 936
19 175
21 914
27 735
30 861
Overall Grants Expenditure
36 982
44 884
50 708
57 720
62 238
70 597
80 248
89 365
14
So, the CSG Impact Evaluation tried to
answer a number of policy questions
1. What are the enabling conditions that permit
households to successfully access CSG?
2. What factors/conditions limit access to the
CSG?
3. What changes in design could ameliorate
these limiting factors? Are these ‘technical’
changes or changes that address constraints at
the community or household level?
15
Specific Questions for the CSG IE
1. How has early versus late affected the well-being of
children? Non-enrolled was dropped because of
difficulty to locate/find
2. What are the pathways/mechanisms that have led to
changes in these welfare indicators?
3. How are critical life course events of adolescents –
school continuation, labour force initiation, delay in
take-up of risky behaviours – affected by the
extension of the CSG?
4. What are the pathways/mechanisms by which the
CSG can affect these critical life course events?
5. What is the impact of the CSG on recipient
households?
16
The ‘theory of change’
The design process made the following propositions to be tested:
1) Cash grants targeted on children directly reduce the poverty and
vulnerability of children living in poor households.
2) In addition to funding increased consumption, cash grants enable
poor households and carers to participate in productive economic
activity
3) Cash grants address the underlying causes of poverty, by enabling
poor households to invest in physical, social, and human capital
assets
4) Receipt of cash grants can reduce the adoption of risky
behaviours, such as transactional sex, alcohol consumption or
substance abuse, in particular amongst adolescents.
5) Specific features of the CSG – including that it is unconditional, that it
targets care-givers, that it is delivered periodically and predictably,
and that transaction costs are relatively low – all ensure that the
overall net effectiveness of the programme is maximised.
17
Qualitative evaluation
• Decisions and processes surrounding CSG
applications
• Experiences around receipt of the grant at paypoints, including accessibility and service delivery
standards
• Use of the grant and service access
• Life circumstances of and issues concerning girls
and boys ages 13-15
• Child protection, social welfare, early childhood
development
18
Sample for Qualitative work
Province
Type of locality
Eastern Cape
Urban
KwaZulu-Natal
Peri-urban
Rural
Urban
Peri-urban
Rural
Gauteng
Urban
Limpopo
Urban
Peri-urban
Peri-urban
Rural
Rural
Name of locality
Boesak Ground, Missionvale, Port
Elizabeth
First Avenue, Umtata
Engcobo
Umlazi
Merrivale
Izingolweni
Flamboyant; Middle Crescent;
Kwaggasrand
Jewels Avenue; Extension 13; Lenasia
Extension 2; Sicelo Village; Meyerton
Zone 2; Seshego
Groothoek
Koloti
19
Quantitative work
• The measure differences in outcomes
between the beneficiaries and their
counterfactual
• Application of “difference-in-differences” or
“double difference” methods: “before/after”
and “with/without” data
• Propensity score matching
• Regression Discontinuity Design
20
“double difference” method
21
Findings from the Qualitative
Evaluation with special focus on
Child Protection
22











BOYS
Children’s work (1):
Income-earning activities
Washing cars and taxis
Gardening
House construction
Agricultural labour
Petty trading
Taxi conductor
Selling scrap metal
Motor mechanic
Barbering
Shoe-shining
Pushing shopping trolleys
GIRLS
 Hairdressing
 Beautician
 Domestic work
 Child-care (“babysitting”)
 Petty trading
 Cooking and selling food
 Shop assistant
(stacking shelves, cashier)
 Transactional sex
23
•
ECD services (1):
Why parents value ECD
Education.
(“I think it’s important for a child to attend a day-care, because
it helps kids to be bright when he goes to school.”)
(“The school principals nowadays do not want to enrol children
in grade one if they didn’t attend crèche or pre-school.”)
• Social interaction.
(“Though it is costly to send a child to crèche it is very important
for the child, so that she can mingle with other children.”)
•
Security.
(“If your children are at crèche they are secured.”)
•
Child-care.
(“We use the crèche because we are job-hunting, and there is
no-one who is going to look after the children.”)
24
•
ECD services (2):
CSG and ECD
CSG pays ECD fees.
(“People who receive CSG don’t have a problem to pay for crèche.”)
(“Yes the CSG does help pay for the crèche fees – if I didn't have it
my child wouldn't be attending crèche.”)
•
CSG pays non-fee costs.
(“We buy toiletries for our children when they go to crèche, and also
prepare a lunch box, and we use the CSG to do that.”)
•
CSG pays only for low-quality ECD.
(“The grant does help us to pay for pre-schools, but only the cheap
affordable ones which cost R30 to R50.”)
•
No CSG = no ECD.
(“If we were to get grant we would be able to pay for crèche.”)
25
Children’s work (2):
impacts on education
Challenges faced by children:
• Children miss classes or school-days because of their work
• Children drop out of school to earn money
• Children who work after school cannot do their homework, or concentrate
in class
• Once children start earning they don’t see the value of education
• Education is highly valued, and children are usually discouraged from
working if it interferes with school
• Some children choose not to work, to prioritise education
• Other children work only after hours and at weekends.
CSG and child work:
• There is no clear evidence from research of a correlation between getting
CSG and a tendency to go to work and neglect education
26
Adolescent risks (1):
“Ranked”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Drugs and alcohol
Dating older men for money
Pregnancy
Crime
HIV/AIDS + STIs
Gangs
Sexual abuse
Prostitution
Lack of discipline and guidance from adults
Peer pressure
Involved with teachers
Dating older women for money
27
Adolescent risks (2):
Impact of CSG
1. Poverty plays a role in risky behaviour.
(“they don’t have anything to put on the table.”)
2. CSG beneficiaries are less at risk.
(“Those who receive the grant can buy something to eat.”)
(“Yes, non-recipients are more vulnerable; they can only use
their body to get money.”)
3. CSG makes no difference.
(“The CSG has nothing to do with children involving
themselves in risky behaviours. Children will always misbehave
if they don’t have a proper upbringing – upbringing is the
key.”)
28
Social workers
•
Social workers are overworked. (“You need to go to their offices and
book an appointment, and those lists are always full.”)
•
Some social workers are polite and helpful. (“They do encourage us
and they make us feel better.”)
• But other social workers are rude and unhelpful. (“One person just
shoves you to another person.”)
•
CSG application process. (“They helped me to apply for a grant for my
daughter’s child. They took me to court in Pretoria, where I got a letter to
bring to SASSA.”)
•
Advising children on CSG. (“They are the ones who help us with issues
concerning CSG, they tell us who receives the CSG money and what the
money is for.”)
29
Summary influence on other services
How the CSG helps with schooling
 Pays school fees
 Pays other school costs
 Pays for transport
 Provides lunch at school
 Provides food in general
 Buys clothing
 Improves concentration
 Discourages working
• “It does help a lot especially for
school – you are able to pay the
school fees with it, and the kids
get money for lunch at break.”
• “A lot of children leave home
hungry, but they are encouraged
to come to school because they
know they are going to eat.”
• “Many teenagers who dropped out
from school came back. I think this
CSG money made them to realise
that their future is still there.”
30
What is needed to keep children in school













Discipline
Support of parents
Support of teachers
Support of government
Uniforms
Money
Jobs
Food
Other school supplies
Transport
Recreational activities
Increased CSG
The new conditionality
 Pro-conditionality
(“I think this CSG policy is a good one.
It will assist the school-children first
of all to attend regularly. It will help
us because there has been a critical
absenteeism of learners.” – teacher)
 Anti-conditionality
(“I don’t think that is an issue, because
the families of the children need to
understand that children need to go to
school, regardless of CSG. If it focuses
on the CSG then it will be wrong.”
– community leader)
31
Health
Access to health care
 CSG money pays for health care – hospital, medicines, transport).
(“If the child is sick, it is easy to take her to the doctor – you can
afford to pay because she is receiving the grant.”)
 CSG provides “health insurance” – can borrow for health costs.
(“Because I have the CSG, I can borrow money for health services
and pay back when I get the grant. It is common in our village.”)
 Costs – clinic is free for children under 7, cheap for adults; hospital
more expensive; private doctors most expensive. CSG provides
access to government health services, sometimes private doctors.
(“We cannot afford private doctors with the CSG.” )
 No discount for CSG – only unemployed, pensioners, disabled.
(“Whether you are a CSG recipient or not, you have to pay.”)
32
Health and birth certificates
Standard procedure
1. Women who give birth at a hospital are referred to a clinic.
2. Clinic issues an immunisation card (IC) for the child.
3. Mother applies for the child’s birth certificate at Home Affairs.
4. Mother uses the birth certificate to apply for CSG at SASSA.
(“You get the clinic card and then apply at Home Affairs for a
birth certificate, and if you get the birth certificate you then
apply at SASSA for the Child Support Grant.”)
New procedure
1. Birth certificates are issued in hospital after birth.
(“If you have your ID they can make a birth certificate at the
same time at the hospital.”)
2. Mother uses the birth certificate to apply for CSG at SASSA.
33
Use of grant and influence on
outcomes
34
“Mis–use” by recipients
 Alcohol (cited most often).
(“Some do not even use it for the intended beneficiary, they just
drink alcohol with it. This does not mean they only started drinking
after receiving the CSG.”)
 Visits to hairdressers (by care-givers who collect the grant).
(“There are those who go to the salon to get their hair done.”)
 Expensive clothes (for care-givers who collect the grant).
(“There are those people who use it to buy expensive clothes while
their children are struggling. They are just irresponsible.”)
 Consensus: Most recipients do use the CSG responsibly.
(“But most of the recipients use the money correctly, whereby the
child’s needs are first priority because the most important thing is
the child’s needs.”)
35
Intra-household problems
1. Some young mothers rely on relatives to care for their child, while
mis-spending the money on themselves.
(“I know of a teenage mother who left her child with the grandmother, but she did not leave the bank card so she withdraws the
money and uses it for other things, and the child is not benefiting
from the grant.”)
2. “Secondary care-givers” sometimes ask SASSA to transfer control
of the CSG from an irresponsible primary-care-giver.
(“I woke up one morning and found my grandson left at my gate
by his mother. So I went to SASSA offices and reported my story.
When I came back they had stopped the grant on her name and
helped me get all the documents I needed. So the SASSA offices
were very helpful in helping me get the grant for my grandson.”)
36
Control of CSG cash
 Primary care-giver (usually female) decides how CSG money is used,
usually alone – without consulting their partner.
(“I make decisions because I am the mother.”)
 Men rarely get any CSG money.
(“A woman giving a man money? I have never heard of such a
thing! I don’t even get a cent from her, especially the CSG money.”)
 Sometimes older children are involved in decision-making.
(“I do have some influence, because my mom tells me when the
date is close and I say what I want.”)
 In 3-generation households (PCG living with her parents), the
oldest generation has some say over CSG spending decisions.
(“You cannot decide on your own if you are still under your
parental guidance.”)
37
Recommendations
38
Recommendations (1)
•
Clearer communication on CSG eligibility & application procedures:
(1) income thresholds for the means test;
(2) eligibility of care-givers who are formally employed;
(3) eligibility by nationality, citizenship and residence status.
•
The CSG payment amount should be automatically adjusted every
year, at least to match the inflation rate.
•
Monitor participating stores to stop recipients being compelled to
spend some CSG money at the store before collecting the balance.
•
To promote financial inclusion of people on low incomes, banks
should allow recipients to save CSG money, instead of suspending
their accounts if the money is not withdrawn within three months.
39
Recommendations (2)
•
The new “soft conditionality” on education should be evaluated, to
see whether it has an impact on school attendance and enrolment.
•
Interventions are needed to improve school attendance, such as
integrating social workers into schools; improving school-based
recreation activities; providing school lunches in secondary schools;
increasing donations of old uniforms; providing free transport on
school buses; and eliminating ‘casual Fridays’.
•
More social workers are urgently needed, especially in poor urban
and peri-urban communities, where social problems and risky
behaviours are concentrated.
•
Complementary interventions for adolescents include increasing
the access of adolescents to social workers and psychologists.
40