Developmental Social
Welfare: A contribution to
Poverty Alleviation
Presentation to the School for International Training
Community Health Programme
12th October 2010
Shirin Motala
Centre for Economic Development & Performance
Human Sciences Research Council
A look back in History …..
Pre-Apartheid SA’s social welfare system informed by:
Poor Law System of Britain (1598): limited relief &
provision for “setting the poor to work” – much hated
Deficit Theory – “deserving or underserving”
Dependence Theory - disincentive to work
Post 2nd World War Beveridge Reforms - social security
and social services
Carnegie Commission 1932 study on poor white problem in
SA – recommended work preservation for whites, skills
development and training, public works programmes,
increasing provision and access to governments services
e.g. housing, education etc.
2nd Carnegie Commission 1984 – focused on causes of
poverty, called for a fundamental redistribution of power
issue.
Resulted in extension of some social security provisions to
other race groups, township housing, state maintenance
grants, old age pension etc.
Different policies are designed to meet
different purposes
Example:
Child and family policies could be to:
Keep family unit together (general aim)
Increase number of children (France)
Decrease or limit number of children
(China)
Increase school attendance of children
(‘Oportunidades’ in Mexico)
Reduce poverty experienced by children
(CSG in SA)
From Apartheid to Developmental
Social Welfare – post 1994
Vision
A caring and integrated system of social
development services that facilitates
human development and improves the
quality of life.
Mission
To enable the poor, the vulnerable and the
excluded within South African society to
secure a better life for themselves, in
partnership with them and with all those
who are committed to building a caring
society.
Policies that shape the model of
social services
Major policies shaping South African model:
• White Paper for Social Welfare 1997
• Policy for Financial Awards to
Services Providers 2004, affects
subsidies to NGOs and salaries
(currently under review)
• Service Delivery Model for
Developmental Social Services 2006
New legislation based on DSW
Children’s Act no.38 of 2005
Children’s Amendment Act no. 41 of
2007
Sexual Offences Act no. 32 of 2007
Child Justice Bill B 49B of 2002
Older Persons Act No. 13 of 2006
Social Policy determined by assumptions
Assumption Fact
3+ generational
Nuclear family
Skip generations – parents missing
Parents are present
Grandparents - in their 40’s & 50’s
Grandparents are old
Single parenthood
Female HHH are always
poorer/ vulnerable High % of children living with
mothers only
‘Women’ are homogeneous
and united Dual families
Younger female HHs do better on
almost every indicator
Male bread winner, mother
at home Deep inter-generational divisions
among women
HIV/AIDS – grandparents key
caregivers
Social Services in a
Developmental Welfare Model
Department of Social Development
Responsibilities
Within package 2 main service branches (White Paper):
i. Social Security (most notably social assistance e.g. grants)
Aim to prevent and alleviate poverty in the event of life cycle
risks such as loss of income due to unemployment,
disability, old age or death occurring.
ii. Social Welfare services (poorly understood).
To provide support to reduce poverty, vulnerability and the
impact of HIV and AIDS through sustainable development
programmes in partnership with implementing agents such
as State-funded institutions, Non-Governmental
Organisations (NGOs), Community-Based Organisations
(CBOs) and Faith-Based Organisations (FBOs).
Another responsibility added more recently (2002)
iii. Developing structure to facilitate co-ordinated action that
guarantees rights of children made vulnerable by HIV/AIDS
What is in the social welfare service basket?
Full range of services associated with placing and monitoring
children who need alternative care (foster placement, kinship
care, adoption, residential care)
Home and community based care and support
Full range of protection services for children and women
(violence)
Counseling services by social workers for families and
children experiencing difficulties
Services to assist adult & children suffering substance
abuse
Early childhood development services (0-5 year olds)
Preventative services which includes measures to address
poverty and help families earn income to meet basic needs.
Services for the elderly
Services for adults and children with special needs –
disability
Institutional care for children, disabled and elderly
Policy Concerns – delivery of social
services
Set of concerns around financing policy (1999 and 2004) to support
SWS delivery (including HCBCS):
Context:
- NPOs crucial role in service delivery
- NPOs struggling against financial constraints
- State services also under resourced
Financing policy:
Leaves it up to discretion of govt. officials how to much to allocate (even for statutory
services)
Does not offer a concrete plan to quantify the resource gaps and work towards filling
them over time.
Implication: Too low and uncertain funding of NPOs, in-equitable practices and children
don’t get access.
Quality Assurance: Poorly developed or completely inadequate systems and capacity
for quality assurance of service delivery.
Inability to respond to challenges of redress and inequity in distribution of resources
and services – urban – rural etc.
Lack of coordination and integration across Departments and within departments e.g.
Children in conflict with the law, Early childhood Development - Insufficient birds-eye
view of how different initiatives especially for vulnerable children (including those
affected by HIV/AIDS) fit together
Social Assistance … for vulnerable,
destitute ….
It constitutes 90% of Social Development Budget
Non contributory – from general revenue
Means tested
Provision of various grants and benefits
Old Age Pension (over 60 years)
Child Support Grant (0-18years)
Disability Grant (over 18 years)
Care Dependency Grant (24 hr care 0-18years)
Grant in Aid
Foster Care Grant (children 0-18years)
War Veterans Grant
Social Relief of Distress
Research on the Old Age Pension
Intended effects:
Well targeted for poverty – reaches rural and poor
Empowering for elderly people
Enables income smoothing
Non-intended effects:
Improves nutritional status of whole household
Contributes to more years of schooling for especially girl
children
Contribution to smme development
WE CAN JUDGE THESE TO BE “GOOD THINGS”,
BUT THEY WERE NOT PART OF POLICY INTENTION
Men and women at pension-day
collection points
Research on the CSG – all the findings
go in the same direction:
8 + million beneficiaries – 11 years
Most primary caregivers are mothers
Good effects on school enrolment
Unexpected finding: the importance of
presence of mother in the household for
access to grants
ALL THESE WERE PART OF POLICY
INTENT
Characteristics of CSG
beneficiaries
According to NIDS 2008:
Almost 60% of all children under 14 receive
some form of cash transfer from the state,
the vast majority receiving the CSG.
82% of child grants are received by one of
the child’s parents, 12% are received by
grandparents and 3% are received by an
aunt or uncle.
Less than 2% of grant beneficiaries are
teenagers; one-third are in their 30s; 15%
are over 50
Problem of targeting/Equity
There are currently more than
600,000 maternal orphans (73%) not
receiving any grant, a vastly higher
proportion than for any other group.
Disproportionately – younger children
0-2 years not accessing grant
Fewer rural children accessing grant
CSG value not in keeping with
inflation – annually increase R10-R20
Foster Care Grant
Designed for “at risk” children that have been
placed in the custody of foster parents in terms of
the Child Care Act.
Significantly larger grant than the CSG at R710
p.m.
The expansion of the HIV/AIDS pandemic has led
to large growth in the number of recipients,
outpacing population growth.
44% of Foster Care Grants go to children older
than 14
Foster Care Grant beneficiaries
600 000 30
500 000 25
400 000 20
300 000 15 %
200 000 10
100 000 5
0 0
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Recipients Children % growth
Source: SASSA
Profile of FC beneficiaries
79% of Foster Care Grant beneficiaries meet the
Child Support Grant means test.
10% of Foster Care Grant beneficiaries have non-
resident caregivers. This is illegal
The most frequent recipient reported is the child’s
grandparent (36%) and 12% report an uncle or
aunt.
Three-quarters of the children receiving the Foster
Care Grant are orphans (42% are dual orphans,
22% are maternal orphans and 10% are paternal
orphans).
Challenges : Foster Care Grant
Complex administrative procedure costly
Without proportional increase in capacity (e.g.
social workers and magistrates) practice having
effect of undermining child protection services
and hence service delivery to other vulnerable
children.
Hiding key policy problem - insufficient income
support for care givers.
Disability Grants
Disability Grant for adults – means
tested and medical evidence required.
Can be permanent or temporary
Subjective application of ‘definition” for
disability.
Care Dependency Grants
CDG not accessed by children with
disabilities if they are not requiring
24 hour care.
Very narrow definition of disability
CDG criteria does not integrate
needs of children’s suffering chronic
illness due to HIV/AIDS infection
and impacts or of children living with
disabilities who need additional
support
HIV/AIDS
HIV/AIDS is changing -:
Who does the care work in
households? And for whom?
Households spending patterns –
health costs & funeral costs
The way people are earning
What people are doing?
(employment, income generation,
subsistence farming, schooling, etc.)
Chronic Diseases & Grants: Incentivising
illness or a pragmatic response to AIDS
Pandemic?
Health care system – overburdened. Inverse relationship
between demand and supply (3402 people for each Doctor)
HIV places a strain on already poor system – 370 000 new
infections annually
DG is only form of support to those living with HIV/AIDS
Narrow criteria –The DoH definition of disability as approved
by cabinet in 2005 means a moderate to severe limitation
in a person’s ability to function or ability to perform daily life
activities as a result of a physical, sensory,
communication, intellectual or mental impairment.
Evidence suggests that people are not testing for fear of
losing the DG once their CD 4 count improves.
Case Study
Ms X from Lusikisiki is a victim of this system.
Having contracted TB in January 2006 she
was given a Temporary Disability Grant, and
was able to overcome the infection.
Four months after her grant had lapsed she was
diagnosed with HIV and a few months later
redeveloped TB.
Her case is one that highlights how the relief
offered by the welfare system works only when
individuals are very ill rather than intervening at an
earlier period to the chronically ill from becoming
so severely debilitated in the first place.
In favour of Chronic Diseases Grant
It will target the burden of disease on the health
system prior to people becoming sick
The CDG offers a means for providing those living
with HIV to have financial ability to access
nutritious food and travel for medical services
Will encourage testing for TB and HIV
Encourage adherence to treatment
Enable better mapping of the epidemic
Curb spread of XDR TB
Good for children if their parents live longer and
healthier
CSG Grant – making more babies?
Myth or Reality – CSG in court
What we know about fertility in SA?
Fertility rates in SA having been
dropping for 40 years.
Related to economic and social factors
Between 1995 and 2001 KZN
Women’s fertility fell from 3.7 to 3.2
children per women
Same for teenage pregnancies –
although rates are still to high
Teen Pregnancies – some facts
1999 – Teen preg rates 35% had been pregnant
2003 – it had dropped to 27%
Rural vs Urban: 60 % higher in rural areas
Primary school completion v. matric: 3 times higher in those with only
primary school
Age: incidence is much higher in 18 & 19 : 93% of all pregnancies in teens
are in the 17-19 year age group. Only 7 % of pregnant teens are below 16
years?
years olds than younger teenagers
1 in 13 girls aged 15 fall pregnant
1 in 7 girls aged 16 fall pregnant
above 17 years 1 in 3 girls fall pregnant
Race: 7 fold difference between African & Coloured women v. White &
Indian women
10-20% of first sexual experience was coerced for teens – child sexual
abuse
Link between sexual violence early in life, violence and
teen pregnancies – pregnant 19 year olds were 14 times
likely to have been abused as children
Prevention Response: Reduce
Vulnerability
Teenagers in SA are in limbo –
increased vulnerability
For a poor young girl – acquiescence
to economic pressure and social
expectations makes rational sense
and for her own good.
Change the meaning of
pregnancy – provide alternatives to
self evaluation and affirmation
Living in a world of increasing
insecurity
Some Trends …..
Fewer workers are in formal employment.
Fewer people rely on the land for subsistence and basic security.
Traditional forms of family and community life have been eroded
and with it the support systems have been eroded.
Female headed households are increasing –greater poverty
More women are migrating internally and across national borders in
search of work.
Governments are reducing their role in social services and welfare.
Women are living longer, but not easier lives – exception is
HIV/AIDS affected countries.
Poverty and exclusion of large numbers ….
Shift away from transitory poverty or lifecycle related poverty
CHRONIC POVERTY
is the norm
Being chronically poor means…
Living in larger households, female
headed and older headed.
Adult members of hh are less
educated – lower levels of literacy.
Hh spend less on food per person
then other hh.
Have less access to arable land per
capita
More likely to be receiving pensions.
Poverty and Social Development
Poverty: huge challenges on SA
Government. Requires integrated
response - not just responsibility of
Social Development
Despite substantial social spending
SA has massive backlogs and gaps
and increasing poverty
Unemployment in SA
Big problem: SA has one of the highest
unemployment rates in the word with over 5
million people unemployed.
Youth unemployment – unique feature. School
leavers have a 50/50 chance of finding a job by
age 24. Between 500,000 and 700,000 school
leavers join the ranks of the unemployed
annually
Only 3% of unemployed receive u/e support
Split between those searching and those
discouraged – 61 % looking for more then a
year.
Urban 55 % U/E; Rural 45 %
Poverty and Employment
Informal economy workers almost all earn
under R R2,500 and mostly below R
1000.00 – street traders
Formal sector employment in agriculture,
domestic work – sector determinations
generally below R 2500.00
Low and semi skilled wages have been
stagnant – not benefiting from productivity
improvements
Social Sector employment among the
lowest paid, least protection, precarious,
low skilled.
Food insecurity
14,3 million food insecure people
in SA – 38% of population
38% of SA did not meet daily
energy requirements
Female headed households
worse off
Children bear the brunt of this
What’s happening to children?
25-27% stunting in children under 5 years
IMR – one of 12 countries where this is on the
increase – moving away from achieving MDG
targets.
MDG target 14 per 1000
Only 38% of children under 1 accessing the grant.
Without the CSG South Africa’s HDI would be
lower and its Gini-Coefficient would be higher.
Challenges for Social Development
into the future
Child poverty – denied opportunities
Youth unemployment – self esteem,
dignity, anomie
Burden of care – women, children and
elderly
Care Work – skills, employment
conditions need to be addressed
Requires greater integration across
departments and programmes
