The Politics of Social Protection in Africa: Social Grants for families with Children living in

poverty in South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe

Isaac Chinyoka

Lessons from a Decade’s Research on Poverty: Innovation, Engagement & lmpact

16-18 March 2016, Pretoria, SA

Outline

1. Existing programmes2. Variation in existing programmes3. Research, Policy debates, engagements and (failed) reforms4. Conclusions

EXISTING SOCIAL GRANTSSouth Africa Namibia Botswana Zimbabwe

Child Support Grant (CSG)

Child Maintenance: single orphans

Orphan care programme (1999) through the STPA

Zimbabwe Harmonised Social Cash Transfer

Foster Care Grant (FCG)

Foster Care: Double orphans

Needy Children programme

Care Dependency Grant (CDG)

Special Maintenance

Needy Students

Vulnerable child grant

Vulnerable Children

Remote Area Dweller programme

Targeted on family

‘break-down’

Targeted on poverty

Botswana food basket

SA/Nam Foster Care Grant

Namibia: Child Maintenance Grant

SA State Maintenance Grant

(to 1990s)

SA Child Support Grant

Targeted on family

‘break-down’

Targeted on poverty

Botswana food basket

SA/Nam Foster Care Grant

Namibia: Child Maintenance Grant

SA State Maintenance Grant

(to 1990s)

SA Child Support GrantLesotho

Kenya

Programmes for ‘labour-constrained

households’ (Zimbabwe, Malawi,

Zambia)

South Africa

Policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect

1 Who benefited from SMG?

Distribution of reach of SMG by race in 1996- Whites 15/1000 bens Indians 40/1000 bensColoureds 48/1000bens African Blacks 2/1000 bens

Lund Committee ; CSOs (Black Sash; SA Council of Churches, National Welfare and Social Services Dvt Forum & SA NGO Coalition) TU (COSATU)

SMG abolished CSG introduced (1998)

…Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect

2 Why CSG excluded chn above 7yrs?

• #chn above age 7 left out• increased # chn trying to access

FCG rather than CSG• # hhs with chn not meeting

means-test• Insufficient nutrition• chn’s reduced access to educ• child poverty- ¾ & effectiveness

of grant- 11million chn living on less than R200 (CSG was R160)

• constitutional definition of child• HIV prevalence and impact of

AIDS (high morbidity & mortality rate among women of child bearing age)

• #chn excluded but in absolute poverty

• the cost of means test

CSOs i.e Alliance for Children’s Entitlement to Social Security; Child Welfare Society; Black Sash; Nadel (National Association of Democratic Lawyers); New Women's Movement; CASE(Community Agency for Social Enquiry; Child Health Policy Institute, UCT

Age extension: 7-14 (2003)

Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect

3 Why CSG mean test sd be removed?

• Cost of CSG means test to gvt (R165 020 million) & beneficiaries (R25- 8 hrs in 2005)

CI; CSOs Revised means test of CSG

4 Gvt proposed orphan grants & Exclusion of children above 14yrs

• Demographic projections • Chn’s living arrangements• pervasiveness of child poverty• costing options for Informal Kinship Care

Grant; FCG, Court-ordered Kinship Care Grant & Adoption Grant

• Case studies of excluded chn-#chn accessing CSG 7.6 million but many others excluded

• impact of HIV &AIDS on chn’s living arrangements

• number of child head hhs• effectiveness of other grants in reducing

child poverty

SALRC; CI, Black Sash, ACESS,CASE, DSD

Rejection of gvt proposed orphan grantsAge extension to 15 (2008)

Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect

5 Exclusion of chn above 15yrs

• Reach of CSG• child poverty irrespective of

orphanhood (pervasiveness)

CI; Black Sash; ACESS

Age extension: 18 (2009)

6 Lack of support for chn 18+ but in school

• Care arrangements (countrywide register -high # of hhs with unemployed older chn caring for younger brothers and sisters

• many chn (750 000) btwn 19-21 in training/school

CI; minister of SD Bathabile Dlamini

Proposal to abolish CSG means test & extend age to 21

Cover 17% of all chn

NamibiaChild Welfare Grants

STUDIES

Child Grant Study Tour,

South Africa 2014

Assessment of sustainable funding options for implementation of

universal child grants 2014

CWG Policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect

1 Policy limitations of focusing on orphans only

• reach of grants -76 % of estimated orphans 2006

• increasing # orphans bt constitute only 18%

• chn living arrangements-many chn with both parents living in poor families

• high number (4-5) of chn in poor hhs

• population exp multidimensional poverty (39.6 per cent)

• high # chn not qualifying due to eligibility criteria

• chn multiple deprivations

MGECW, NSA supported by UNICEF

Introduction of VCG in 2013 (orphan to poverty targeting)

…Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect

2 Why there was No change in value of grantsN$200 from 2000-2013

• Low impact of grants on child poverty-1% reduction

• increasing # VC, 307,000 chn living in poverty with more than 165,000 in extreme poverty (situation analysis 2010-3),

• Children’s risk of being poor

• child poverty @34% (NHIES 2009/10)

• impact of other grants on child poverty i.e OAP

• incidence of household income dependency on grants

MGECW & NPC supported by UNICEF

Increased grant amounts 200-250 (2013)

Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect

3 Why there was no legal framework providing for child grants

• Hh income inequality• high child poverty, social

exclusion & deprivation

MGECW supported by UNICEF; LAC

Passing of Children Bill Dec 2014

4 Why means-tested VC grants?

• Increasing child poverty• simulated impact of

universal child grant- NAMOD

• # eligible VC but not benefiting

• tour to South Africa• available funding options:

child levy from mining, tourism, airport tax, financial transactions, VAT & income solidarity tax

MGECW supported by UNICEF, ILO

Proposal for universal child grants

Botswana

STUDIES

policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect1 Why

targeting orphans only?

• Poverty rate 47% -1993/4• HIV prevalence rate-35.6% 1996• #AIDS orphans (12% in 2000)• impact of HIV&AIDS on children’s living

arrangements( poor socio-economic situation of orphans)

MLG-DSW, MoH; USAID

Introduction of food basket 1999 STPA

2 How to address absolute poverty & what is the incentive for fostering?

• orphans 44,327 in 2010• Low coverage & effectiveness of current

progs (34% orphans hhs receive gvt support; 15% no assistance-2006)

• #OVC in poor (extended ) families without social support

• few social workers (2008)• increasing #of female hhs with OVC• # CHHs• poor educational & health outcomes• prevalence of vulnerable children (31 in

2006 & 36,183 in 2010); child labour (9% 2008)

MLG-DSW World Bank; UNICEF

Proposals for Family Support grant, Child Support Grant & Foster Care Grant

2010-5Zimbabwe

 

Report on the

test run of the

Zimbabwe

Harmonized

Social Cash

Transfer

Programme in

Ward 15

Goromonzi

District

 

P

roce

ss a

nd re

sults

of b

asel

ine

surv

ey o

f lab

our c

onst

rain

ed,

extr

emel

y po

or h

ouse

hold

s in

Goro

mon

zi, W

ard

5 N

ov 2

010

Policy debatesCase Debate Evidence By whom Effect

1 Need for cash transfers program (before 2011)

• High Child mortality• poor child nutritional status

(35% stunted)• early marriage32%• orphan prevalence 25%;

prevalence of vulnerable children 37%

• chn living arrangements -26% not living with parents

• Low external support to OVCs 20%

• low school enrolment & attendance by OVCs -16% not attending school

DSS;UNICEF Gvt agreed to pilot ZHSCT

Case Debate Evidence By whom Effect

2 Why target mostly poor & labour constrained hhs?

• increasing # of AIDS orphans • # chn in poor & labour

constrained hhs 81%; • high hh poverty: 250 000 hhs

with 700 000 chn living in absolute poverty

• many PLhhs cared for many orphans;

• limited gvt funding for social protection for chn

DSS; UNICEF

Targeting of poor &labour constrained hhs only

3 Why strict means test?

• pervasiveness of hh poverty; • costing prog expansion

scenarios-affordability

DSS; UNICEF

10% targeted

Final thoughts

1. evidence matters …. supported a familialist policy in Botswana & Zimbabwe, a poverty-targeted one in South Africa, and a mix in Namibia … BUT 2. not always the caseo legitimacy of evidence- where is it coming from?o Cultural vs rights considerationso pressure -civil society/globalo political will and commitmento elite attitudes towards social grantso the role of elections o Affordability

POWER & LIMITS OF EVIDENCE in POLICY REFORMS