COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS ON CHILD SUPPORT GRANT:

A CASE STUDY OF THE LEPELLE-NKUMPI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

by

LESENYA MOGALANE EDWARD

MINI DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Public Administration

in the

FACULTY OF MANAGEMENT AND LAW

(TURFLOOP GRADUATE SCHOOL OF LEADERSHIP)

at the

UNIVERSITY OF LIMPOPO

SUPERVISOR: Professor M.P. Sebola

2015
 DECLARATION

I declare that the mini-dissertation hereby submitted to the University of Limpopo for
the Master’s degree in Public Administration in the Faculty of Management and Law
has not been submitted by me for a degree at this or any other university: that it is
my work in design and in execution, and that all material contained herein has been
duly acknowledged.

_______________________ _____________

LESENYA ME (Mr) DATE

i
 DEDICATION

This research is dedicated to my wife, Mathume Esther Lesenya, and to my two

children Karabo and Redumetje for their support as they encouraged me to study, to
prove myself and set an example for my family and children.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I would like to thank the Almighty for giving me wisdom, patience,
perseverance and courage to complete my studies. He has done great things for me
throughout my studies and for that I am so grateful. Sincere appreciation goes to
Prof M.P. Sebola, my supervisor, for his patience, selfless support, motivation,
encouragement and constructive criticism he gave during the compilation of this
project. Furthermore, I would like to extend a word of thanks to my family and
friends for their support and encouragement they have shown to me during my
studies.

iii
 ABSTRACT

The present study is about community perception on child support grant (CSG) in
Lepelle Nkumpi, in the Limpopo Province. The main aim of the study was to
investigate the use of CSG by the beneficiaries and the community perceptions
thereof on CSG abuse in South African Social Security Agency (SASSA). The
objectives were to investigate the use of CSG by the beneficiaries, to identify the
weakness in SASSA policy on the granting of CSG, to analyse the community
perception about the abuse of CSG and to provide workable solutions to the existing
problems of child grant. Structured interviews, questionnaires and literature were
used to collect data. The study concluded that SASSA employees and community
members believe that beneficiaries are abusing child support grant while
beneficiaries believes that child support grant is used properly.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DECLARATION i

DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 3

1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES 4

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4

1.5 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS 5

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 6

1.7 OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH REPORT 6

1.8 CONCLUSION 7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION 9

2.2 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY IN

SOUTH AFRICA 9

2.3 CONCEPTUALISATION AND CONTEXTUALISATION OF

CHILD SUPPORT GRANT IN SOUTH AFRICA 11

2.4 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK THAT UNDERGIRDS THE

PROVISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY IN SOUTH AFRICA 12

2.4.1 Constitution of Republic of South Africa, 1996 12

2.4.2 Social Assistance Act, 2004 13

2.4.3 Children’s Act, 2005 14

v
2.4.4 South African Social Security Agency Act, 2004 14

2.5 THE NECESSITY OF CHILD SUPPORT GRANT 15

2.6 AN IMPACT OF SOCIAL GRANT ON THE MODERN COMMUNITIES 18

2.7 CULTURE OF DEPENDENCE ON STATE SOCIAL GRANTS 22

2.8 THE CHALLENGES FACING SOCIAL SECURITY 26

2.8.1 Administration 27

2.8.2 Resources 29

2.9 CONCLUSION 30

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION 30

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 30

3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 31

3.3.1 Study area 32

3.3.2 Population 32

3.3.3 Sample size and selection method 32

3.3.4 Data collection method 33

3.3.5 Data analysis 33

3.4 CONCLUSION 33

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA

4.1 INTRODUCTION 34

4.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS 34

4.2.1 Data from beneficiaries 35

4.2.1.1 Gender 36

4.2.1.2 Race 37

vi
4.2.1.3 Age 38
4.2.1.4 Occupation 39
4.2.1.5 Marital status 40
4.2.1.6 Educational level 41
4.2.1.7 Where do you reside 42
4.2.1.8 Kind of house you live in 43
4.2.1.9 Period of receiving 44
4.2.1.10 Children you have who receive social grant 44
4.2.1.11 Amount receive 45

4.2.1.12 How do use the money 45

4.2.1.13 Money sufficient do cater the needs of

the children 46

4.2.1.14 Other things do you use with this money 47

4.2.1.15 What do you buy 48

4.2.1.16 CSG is received by person in need 49

4.2.2 Data from community members 49

4.2.2.1 CSG is received by person in need 50

4.2.2.2 Child support grant encourages pregnancy 51

4.2.2.3 Usage of CSG by beneficiaries 51

4.2.2.4 Observation regarding the alleges abuse of CSG 52

4.2.2.5 Period of observations 52

4.2.2.6 Places of observation 53

4.2.2.7 Suggestion that SASSA should to correct the 53

situation

4.2.3. Data from SASSA employees 55

4.2.3.1 Stationed 56

4.2.3.2 How long have been employed by SASSA 56

4.2.3.3 Current job 57

vii
4.2.3.4 Responsibilities in your current position 58
4.2.3.5 Requirements to receive the CSG 58

4.2.3.6 Are the CSG applicant vulnerable to receive an

assistance 59

4.2.3.7 Between which ages girls/women are coming to 60

sassa offices for CSG application

4.2.3.8 What should SASSA do to close the loopholes in its 60

requirements

4.2.3.9 Are there any follow up when the CSG application 61

has been approved

4.2.3.10 People in need 62

4.2.3.11 Thought about CSG 63

4.3 CONCLUSION 64
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION 66

5.1.1 Data from beneficiary 66

5.1.2 Data from community members 67

5.1.3 Data from SASSA employees 68

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 69

5.2.1 Usage of money by beneficiaries 70

5.2.2 Person in need 70

5.2.3 Encourages pregnancy 71

5.2.4 Observation by community members 71

5.2.5 Suggestion by community members 71

5.2.6 Loopholes 72

5.2.7 Thought about CSG 72

5.3 CONCLUSION 73

viii
REFERENCES 74

QUESTIONNAIRES
BENEFICIARY 78

SASSA EMPLOYEES 83

COMMUNITY MEMBERS 86

ix
 CHAPTER 1: GENERAL ORIENTATION TO THE STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Many developing countries throughout the world continue to face numerous

socio-economic challenges (Lund, 2002; Hochfeld, 2013; de Haan, 2014)

more especially because such countries are characterised by high levels of

poverty, inequality and unemployment. It is largely for this reason that social

security assistance was introduced with the primary purpose of protecting

children’s rights and lessening the impact of the treble challenges of poverty,

inequality and unemployment on the poor. Children’s rights to social security

are guaranteed in a number of international human rights instruments such as

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) of 1989, the

African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) of 1990 and

the International Covenant on Social , Economic and Cultural Rights

(ICSECR) of 1966 (Proudlock, 2014). Social grants are seen as the most

popular forms of social protection because they are flexible and responsive

forms of protection for vulnerable groups (Hochfeld, 2013). Consequently,

there has been a global trend towards increased publicly-funded cash transfer

(social grants) to the poor and vulnerable, alongside debates, research and

advocacy about the effectiveness of these transfers. It is understandable

therefore that the rise of social protection on the development agenda is now

an established fact (de Haan, 2014: 311).

Social protection, in the form of social grants, does not only supports present

consumption and welfare; it represents an investment in human capital, with

1
potential benefits in the future. Social protection can disrupt chronic poverty,

including its perpetuation across generations (Grosh et al, 2008).

South Africa, in common with a number of middle-income countries, has

substantially expanded its system of social grants in the last few decades

(Neves, Samson, van Niekerk, Hlatshwayo & du Toit, 2009) to be in line with

the provisions of section 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,

1996 which guarantees access to social security (Proudlock, 2014), including

adequate access to social assistance. To enable such assistance, the South

African Social Security Agency has been established in terms of section 1 of

Social Security Assistance Act, Act No. 13 of 2004 to administer social

security system in an effective, efficient and economical manner to ensure

that the use of funds designated for payment to beneficiaries of social grants

serve its intended purpose. The South African government has developed a

social security system that provides three social different types of social

grants for children namely, Child Support Grant (CSG) Care Dependency

Grant (CDG) and Foster Child Grant (FCG) (Proudlock, 2014). The focus of

the study will be on CSG, which is a cash transfer of R300 to the primary care

givers of children between the ages of 0-18 whose income fall below the

prescribed threshold (which is 10 times the value of the grant). The study will

focus on CSG essentially because there has been numerous concerns or

negative perceptions associated with its usage.

2
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

South Africa is widely and deservedly praised for the comprehensiveness,

generosity, fairness and efficiency of its social protection system (Devereux,

2010). More than 12 million South Africans, or roughly a quarter of the

population, receive social grants at present (Neves et al., 2009). The child

support grant, as one of the three different types of social grants for children,

is intended to form an integral part of the broader social protection

programme. It is therefore not surprising that Berry and Proudlock (2014)

argue that the child support grant is recognised as one of South Africa’s most

successful poverty alleviation interventions. It is worth noting however that

there is a concern among policy makers and community members alike that

the child support grant is abused by beneficiaries. This concern is laid bare

by the general outcry from the South African communities that the

beneficiaries of child support grants are abusing the money by not using it for

its intended purpose. This is a significant problem because under these

circumstances, policy makers would not be able to make a determination of

whether their interventions are yielding the desired results. For example,

whereas section 19 of the Social Security Assistance Act 13 of 2004 requires

that any person who is the recipient of the child support grant should stay with

the children, on whose behalf the money is being received, so as to ensure

that the needs of these children are catered for, and that the money should

only be used for the needs of those children, there is however a worrying

trend that some beneficiaries do not, at all, stay with their children and those

who are staying with their children are not using the money for its intended

purpose. It is within this context that the study sought out to investigate the

3
 perceptions associated with the use of child support grant with the view of

providing policy makers with measures for attaining the effective use of child

support grant.

1.3 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to investigate the use of child support grant by the

beneficiaries in order to understand the community perceptions weaknesses

associated with its usage thereby providing policy makers with measures for

attaining the effective use of child support grant. To operationalise this aim,

the following research questions are formulated:-

 To investigate the level of use of child support grant by the beneficiaries;

 To identify the weaknesses in South African Social Security Agency policy

on the granting of child support grant;

 To analyse the community perceptions about the abuse of child support

grant by beneficiaries; and

 To propose measures for enhancing the effective use of child support

grant.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The general research question of the study is formulated as follows: What is

the level of usage of child support grant by beneficiaries? The specific

research questions are formulated from the general research question as

follows:

4
  What is the level of utilisation of child support grant by the beneficiaries?

 What are the weaknesses in South African Social Security Agency policies

on the granting of child support grant?

 What are the community perceptions on the use of child support grant

beneficiaries?

 What are the proposed measures for enhancing the effective use of child

support grant?

1.5 DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS

The terms and concepts to be used in this proposed study are defined in

order to prevent misconceptions arising from their usage.

Agency: Agency means the South African Social Security Agency established

by the South African Social Security Agency Act, 2004 (Act 9 of 2004) and is

solely establish to administer, approve beneficiary’s applications and pay

social grant as an government entity in South Africa.

Child Support Grant: The child support grant refers to money paid to the

primary care givers of children between the ages of 0-18 whose income below

the prescribed means test income threshold (Vorster & de Waal, 2008;

Hochfeld, 2013; Proudlock, 2014). In South Africa, the amount of money paid

in monthly is R300.00 (Hochfeld, 2013; Proudlock, 2014) paid in terms of the

provisions of the Social Assistance Act, 2004 (Act 13 of 2004).

5
 Beneficiary: Beneficiary means a person who receives social assistance in

terms of Sections 6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 of the Social Assistance Act, 2004

(Act 13 of 2004).

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

As it has already been indicated, the study seeks to investigate the

perceptions of community members with regards to the purpose for which

child support grant is used for. This will make a significant contribution in the

field of Public Administration in that policy makers will be aware of the

weaknesses of the system and ultimately rethink the design of the system or

come up with innovative ways of monitoring and evaluation of the system to

ensure that it achieve optimum results for which it was intended.

The study will also be significant in terms of laying bare the issues and

challenges associated with the administration of child support grant in

Limpopo province especially because focused provincial study on the

administration of child support grant are grossly inadequate in Public

Administration discourse. Lastly, the study will assist the provincial

Department of Social Development in understanding the trends of the

application of child support grant in the Limpopo Province. This is

understandable especially because such an understanding is important for

informing policy decisions for improvement of the system.

1.7 OUTLINE OF THE RESEARCH REPORT

6
 Chapter 1: Chapter one outline the background of the study. It forms the

basis of the present research process. A detailed account of the statement of

the problem, as well as the research questions are given in this chapter.

Chapter 2: This chapter will provide a brief review of the existing literature

that presented the most authoritative scholarship on the research problem.

This proposed study will map the regulatory framework to examine whether

the weaknesses in granting the Child Support Grant to beneficiaries could be

improved.

Chapter 3: This chapter outlines the research methodology and design that

are employed to examine the research problem in question. The target group,

sampling method and sampling size are also indicated in this chapter.

Chapter 4: In this chapter collected data will be analysed and interpreted. The

data will be segmented into meaningful thematic units. The original data text

and the content will be synthesised to shape a coherent argument.

Chapter 5: After interpreting the findings, the aims of the research are

summarised and compared with the findings. Conclusions are then drawn on

how far the objectives of the research were achieved. Recommendations are

made in response to the issues in the discussion.

1.8 CONCLUSION

This chapter provided general orientation to the study. To this end, a

description of the research aim, objectives, problem statement, as well as the

significance of the study were effort. It also outlined the definition of key
7
concepts that will be utilised in this study. In the chapter that follows the study

will concentrate on providing the contextualisation of the community

perception on child support grant. Important aspects that are discussed

include social security system in South Africa, requirements of child support

grant applications, legislative framework, social safety nets, poverty, child

support grant, reduces poverty, culture of dependence on state social grants

and challenges facing social security.

8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter focused on providing the general orientation of the study.

This chapter provides the theoretical and conceptual overview of social security

assistance in the South African context. To this end, the historical evolution of

the social security system in South Africa will be comprehensively discussed in

order to provide an adequate understanding the context within which the current

system emerged. Furthermore, the notion of Child Support Grant will also be

conceptualise and contextualise. The role of SASSA as agency responsible for

the administration of grants as well as the challenges faced by this agency will

also be explained.

2.2 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IN SOUTH

AFRICA

A brief sketch of the historical evolution of social assistance is important in order

to understand how the system emerged, giving broad coverage to children, the

old whilst providing no direct coverage for working adults in South Africa

(Brockerhoff, 2013: 20). The provision of social protection in contemporary South

Africa has its roots in both the history and more recent policy developments

(Neves et al., 2009; Brockerhoff, 2013). Hence in order to obtain an adequate

9
understanding of the current social security system in South Africa, it is important

that its historical evolution be traced. This is helpful in that it will improve our

understanding of the unique issues that necessitated the development of current

social security assistance.

South Africa’s contemporary social protection system must be contextualised

within its unique history (Devereux, 2010). The Children’s Protection Act of 1913

provided impetus for the emergence of social assistance in South Africa in that it

allowed for the distribution of the maintenance of grants for children.

The system of targeted social assistance towards vulnerable groups in society is

also referred to as the coverage of the “deserving poor” and dates back to

Victorian models of social welfare. The roots of social assistance in South Africa

was set up and designed to target those parts of the white population who

despite preferential treatment in education and employment might find

themselves in need of social assistance (Brockerhoff, 2013). That is, such a

maintenance grant was largely restricted to White South Africans, neglecting

children in African communities (Pauw & Mncube, 2007).

The old age pension Act of 1928 also provided grants in the form of social

pension. Such pension was initially introduced to cater for the needs of

coloureds and whites South Africans, whilst excluding blacks and Indians

(Bhorat, 1995; Pauw & Mncube 2007). The grant was extended to the latter

group in 1944 (Pauw & Mncube, 2007) In spite of such extensions, it is important

to note that the volume of the grant received differed between and among

different racial groups (Bhorat, 1995; Pauw & Mncube 2007). To this end, in

10
 1947 the maximum pension for whites was five times that of African while

Coloureds and Indians pensioners were paid half as much as whites (Bhorat,

1995) and such high levels of in equality continued unabated until 1971 (Pauw &

Mncube, 2007). The period between 1972 and 1990, saw tremendous change in

the unequal distinction of social grants.

Van der Berg in Pauw & Mncube (2007) describes this period as “a trend

towards re-incorporated and reduced in equality” in the distribution of grants

between and among different racial groups. The approach that was adopted by

the post-apartheid government was based on the concept of a developmental

social welfare in that it emphasised that social development cannot take place

without economic development and that economic development is meaningless

unless it is accompanied by improvements in social welfare (Pauw and Mncube,

2007: 14).

2.3 CONCEPTUALISATION AND CONTEXTUALISATION OF CHILD SUPPORT

GRANT IN SOUTH AFRICA

The child support grant is one of the most earliest major welfare changes

introduced in the advent of the democratic dispensation in South Africa in 1994

(Patel et al., 2012). It was designed to be redistributive and to contribute to the

well-being of children who are among the poorest and most vulnerable in the

society, irrespective of their racial groups (Patel et al, 2012: 5). The introduction

of social assistance in South Africa in 1920s was initially intended primarily to

serve as a safety net for poor Whites.

That is, “white South Africans have long been incorporated into systems of social

protection (Neves et al., 2009; Devereux, 2010). It is worth noting that whereas

11
 the social assistance in general was expanded to cover all citizens by the 1960s

(Neves et al, 2009) the level of grants and the administrative procedures

remained racially discriminatory (Oliver, 2003). However, with the emergence of

the first democratic election in 1994 came an expressed commitment to expand

social assistance to all South Africans on the basis of needs.

The White Paper on Social Welfare of 1997 emphasised the need to move from

the welfare model to a developmental approach, and thus identified a reformed

Social Security System as an important pillar of this approach (White Paper on

Social Welfare, 1997). The Child Support Grant was introduced in 1998 with the

intention of providing social assistance to children in need. Initially the

programme covered children under the age of seven years but was extended to

children under the age of 14 years in 2005 (Pauw and Mncube, 2007). By the

year 2015, the grant has been extended to children up to the age of 18.

2.4 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK THAT UNDERGIRDS THE PROVISION OF

SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM IN SOUTH AFRICA

There are basically eight legislative frameworks for social security systems in

South Africa. Those frameworks include: the Constitution of the Republic of

South Africa, 1996, the Social Assistance Act, 2004, the South African Social

Security Act, 2004 and the Children’s Act 2005.

2.4.1 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

The right to social security is one of several socio-economic rights guaranteed in the

South African Constitution of 1996 (Brockerhoff, 2013). In terms of Section 27 (1) (c)

‘everyone has the right to have access to…social security, including, if they are

12
unable to support themselves and their dependents, appropriate social assistance.’

However, section 27 (2) acknowledges that the state’s resources are limited to

enable the realisation of these socio-economic rights when it stipulates that ‘the state

must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources,

to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

2.4.2 Social Assistance Act 9 of 2004

The Social Assistance Act of 2004 herein after referred to as the Social Assistance

Act replaced the Social Assistance Act of 1992 (Brockerhoff, 2013). The Social

Assistance Act codifies the right to the old age grant, disability grant and child

support grant amongst others. The Act provides for the rendering of social

assistance to persons, to provide for the mechanism for the rendering of such

assistance; to provide for the establishment of an inspectorate for social assistance;

and to provide for matters connected therewith.

This form of social security which provides assistance in cash or in kind to person

who lack the means to support themselves and their dependants. Social assistance

is means- tested and is funded from government revenues. Normally, the

beneficiaries are those who are not covered by any other form of social security. The

objective of social assistance is to alleviate poverty through, amongst other things,

the provision of minimum income support. On a larger scale, the right to social

assistance for children in South Africa is entrenched in the African Charter on the

Rights and Welfare of the Child, the United Convention on the Rights of the Child

and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

2.4.3 Children’s Act 38 of 2005

13
The purpose of the Act is to give effect to certain rights of children as contained in

the Constitution; to set out principles relating to the care and protection of children; to

define parental responsibilities and rights; to make further provision regarding

children’s courts; to provide for partial care of children; to provide for early childhood

development; to provide for the issuing of contribution orders; to provide for

prevention early intervention; to provide for children in alternative care; to provide for

foster care; to provide for child and youth care centres and drop- in centres; to make

new provision for the adoption of children; to provide for inter-country adoption; to

give effect to the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption; to prohibit child

abduction and to give effect to the Hague Convention on International Child

Abduction; to provide for surrogate motherhood; and to create certain new offences

relating to children; and to provide for matter connected therewith.

2.4.4 South African Social Security Agency Act 13 of 2004

The Act provides for the establishment of the South African Social Security Agency

as a schedule 3A public entity in terms of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of

1999. The principle aim of the Act is to make provision for the effective management,

administration and payment of social assistance and service through the

establishment of the South African Social Security Agency. The South African Social

Security Agency is an extension of a government delivery arm that will administer the

delivery of social grants to the poorest of the poor in South Africa. In essence, the

agency is therefore mandated by the Cabinet to tackle complex issues of ensuring

effective and efficient delivery of services of high quality with regard to management

and administration of social grants, such as the entire process and system from

application to receipt of social grants by beneficiaries is done in a manner that is

14
sensitive, caring and restore the dignity of beneficiaries as well as the integrity of the

whole system. Among other things the main focus of the Agency will be to develop

and implement policies, norms and standards for service delivery and monitor,

evaluate the impact and quality of service delivery.

There is no doubt that the Agency will be a national integrated system allowing

beneficiaries to apply and be paid social grants anywhere in the country. It will also

minimise in the short term and eliminate in the long term the negative image of the

social grant system in the country, a visible reduction in long queues and delays in

accessing services. The Agency will create a service delivery capacity that is driven

by human resource developments, is underpinned by a structured competency

model and a performance management system that reward high results. The

eradication of fraud will also be main focus of the Agency. These initiatives will be

enhanced through cooperation with government departments and other

stakeholders.

2.5 THE NECESSITY OF CHILD SUPPORT GRANT

Child support grant is essential in that it plays a critical role in poverty reduction.

According to United Nations (2003: 48), poverty is defined as a denial of choices and

opportunities, a violation of human dignity. It means lack of basic capacity to

participate effectively in society. It means not having enough to feed and clothe a

family, not having a school or clinic to go to; not having the land on which to grow

one’s food or a job to earn one’s living, not having access to credit. It means

insecurity, powerless and exclusion of individuals, households and communities

(Statistics South Africa, 2001). It means susceptibility to violence, and it often implies

living in marginal or fragile environments, without access to clean water or sanitation.

15
According to World Bank (2000: 222), poverty is defined as a pronounced

deprivation in wellbeing and compromises many dimensions.

It includes low incomes and the inability to acquire the basic goods and services

necessary for survival with dignity. Poverty also encompasses low level of health and

education, poor access to clean water and sanitation, inadequate physical security,

lack of voice, and insufficient capacity and opportunity to better one’s life.

Child poverty is one of the most serious societal problems facing many developing

countries, including South African (Biyase, 2005:1). The United Nations International

Children’s Emergency Fund Report on the state of the world’s children (UNICEF:

2005) explains something about the extent of child poverty in the world by providing

the following statistics: 640 million children in developing countries live without

adequate shelter: one in three; 400 million children have no access to safe water:

one in five; 270 million children have no access to health services: one in seven; and

more than 12,1 million primary school-age children are out of school, the majority of

them are girls. The South African experience of child poverty is consistent with the

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Report (UNICEF: 2005). In a

recent study by Coetzee and Streak (2004: 4) the two child poverty indicators used,

are income and food security (hunger).The income indicator analysis is based on the

2000 income and expenditure survey, and the food security insecurity analysis on

the 1999 National Food Consumption Survey. When a high poverty line of R 430 /

month per capita is applied to measure child poverty, 74, 8 % South Africa’s children

are shown to be income poor (Coetzee and Streak, 2004). Of these income poor

children, 60 % are concentrated in three provinces, namely Kwa-Zulu- Natal, the

Eastern Cape and Limpopo (Coetzee and Streak, 2004).

16
When a lower poverty line of R215 / month per capita is used, 54, 2% of children

emerge as being income poor due to known under-reputing of income in the 2000

income and Expenditure Survey, the estimated probated in the study may be slightly

over – inflated. Other money-metric-based measures of child poverty in the recent

past have found that between 28% and 75, 8% of children are poor, depending on

the poverty line and household survey data used in the analysis. IDASA reports the

following data on poor children experiencing food insecurity: At national level, 52% of

children aged 1 to 9 years (4.6 million children) experienced hunger in 1999. A

further 23% were at risk of hunger. Therefore, if poor children are classified as those

experiencing hunger, or at the risk of hunger, the food insecurity suggests that 75%

of South Africa’s children are poor. Using census 2001 estimated of children age 0 to

17 in South Africa; this implies 13 million poor children. (Coetzee and Streak,

2004:4) While the above aspects of poverty remain significant, it is important to note

that South African children experiencing poverty also frequently experience

discriminatory practices social exclusion and vulnerability associated with their

economic situation (Coetzee and Streak, 2004: 5). Therefore, any policy addressing

child poverty cannot have a simple definition of poverty, nor will the situation

encompassed by the reach of the child support grant be homogeneous. From a

policy perspective, it is critically important to understand that most children

experience their situation as being closely linked to the precarious economic

situation of their parents or caregivers. This, in turn, is directly related to limited job

opportunities and high unemployment. Linked to this is the inability of many poor

children to access particular services and meet basic socio-economic right is linked

to the failure to realise another. After 15 years of democracy, there is still an urgent

need for government to enhance the success of its policy to reduce poverty.

17
2.6 THE IMPACT OF SOCIAL GRANTS ON THE MODERN COMMUNITIES

The literature indicates that there is evidence that social assistance has a positive

impact on the lives of the children in poor household. According to Bhorat (2009:

44), one of the policies that government has implemented quite successfully is the

provision of social grants. Such a success is measured at least in terms of its

accessibility to the most vulnerable in the society. That is, these grants are generally

well targeted and mostly reach the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable

members of the society such as children, the aged and the disabled. Grants

distributed to these kinds of people are significant in that they make a substantial

contribution to the total income and it is often used to support the entire household

(Bhorat, 2009). The South Africa system of social security has been successful in

reducing poverty, in both absolute terms – the number people leaving in poverty –

and in relative terms, by reducing the average poverty gap. In September 2003, 3, 7

million South African children were receiving child support grant. In September 2003,

6.8 million people out of the population of 45 million, received some form of social

grant. This include 2.0 million adults receiving the older person grant, 1.1 million

adults receiving the disability grant, and 3.7 million children receiving child support

grant, foster child grants or care dependence grants (National Treasury, 2003).

This view has been supported by Pauw and Mncube (2007) who provided a detailed

analysis of the increase in government spending on social assistance and showed

that not only has the share of social grant expenditure in GDP increased significantly

in the previous years, but also that the number of social grants recipients has

increased exponentially in the previous years since the year 1996.

18
Maitra and Ray (2003:56) shows that the household that receive pensions both

have higher expenditure shares on food and education, lower expenditure shares on

alcohol, tobacco and entertainment than other households. Studies by the Economic

Policy Research Institute corroborate and extend these results, documenting the

extent to which South Africa’s social grant reinforce developmental impacts within

households in terms of nutrition, education, health, and vital services (Samson,

2004). South Africa’s social assistance programme is helping to reduce poverty,

contributing to social cohesion and having a positive impact on the economic

opportunities of household. That’s according to new research conducted by the

Economic Policy Research Institute on behalf of the Department of Social

Development. The provision of social grants is the government’s biggest poverty

relief programme, paying out in the region of R50-billion per annum to over millions

of South Africans. These include older pension grant, child support grant, and

disability grant, foster care grant and care dependence grant. According to the

research report, “ The Social and Economic Impact of South Africa’s Social Security

System” a 10% increase in the take-up of older person grant reduces the poverty

gap by 3.2 while full take-up reduces the poverty gap by 6.2% (Buanews, 2004).

The greatest poverty-reducing potential, the report finds, lies with the progressive

extension of the child support grant to14 years of age, which yield a 57% poverty

gap reduction. The study also found that the provision of grants contributes to an

increase in the number of children enrolling in schools, while living in a household

that receives grants is correlated with a higher success rate in finding employment

(Brynard, 1997: 836).

The child support grant increase to R330 and extended to include children up to 18

years, while previously only caregiver of children up to 15 years qualified. According

19
to calculations by the South African Children Institute, needy South Africans will be

able to access the grant, which will help them feed, clothe, house and educate their

children. At the macro-economic level, social grants programme tends to increase

domestic employment while promoting a more equal distribution of wealth. There is

another positive side effect to social grants-increasing poor people’s spending power

stimulates the local economy. “For every Rand (0.13 dollars) you pay out in social

grants, you gain three Rand (0-4 dollars) in local economy (Koch, 2010). In

September 2007, there were over 8 million beneficiaries of the CSG; with the largest

proportion of beneficiaries found in the populous and poor provinces of KZN (25%)

and the Eastern Cape (19%) (Government White Paper on social development:

1997).

The latest Department of Social Development statistics shows that more than 12, 8

million children benefited from the child support grant at the end January 2009.

Figure 1: Growth rate of CSG recipients over the previous years

Percentage growth rate grant recipients

over the previous years
45% 40.40% 39.10%
40%
35% 31.80%
30%
23.40%
25% 21.50%
20%
15%
9.50%
10% 5.00% 5.80% 5.50% 5.20%
3.40%
5% 0% 0.50%
0%

Source: (SASSA Annual Report 2008/09)

20
Figure 1 summarises the percentage growth rate of grant recipients. The graph

shows that the growth rate of grant recipients has been fluctuating over the years.

From the year 2007/08, which had a growth rate of 3.4 over the previous year, there

was a growth of 5.2% in 2008/09. The effectiveness of South Africa Social Security

System in improving the welfare of beneficiaries has been widely recognised (Duflo,

2000). In terms of use of the grant, a study conducted by Case in 2000 found that

three-quarter of beneficiaries reported the child support grant was their main source

of financial support (Kola et al, 2000). Grants have been playing an important role in

redistributing wealth in South Africa and proven to be successful in reducing some of

the income inequality. “Although a concern about the misuse of cash transfers keeps

coming up, all our evidence suggests that it’s not true (Neves et al., 2009). Quite the

opposite is the case, he argues.

Grants soften the effects of poverty by improving children’s health, reducing

malnutrition and enabling better access to schooling, among other benefits. Children

whose parents receive the child support grant are on average two centimetres taller

than those who do not (Koch, 2010: 97). This indicates that grants recipients truly

spend the extra money on more and better food, because stunting is one of the main

results of malnutrition. Moreover, households that receive a pension have a 12

percent higher work participation rate, Koch explains, which points to the fact that

cash transfers free up family members to look for work- and if household income

increases children are generally better off, too. “Families know very well what they

need to spend the grant on. It’s important for people to make their own spending

choices. The fact that you are poor does not mean you are stupid” (Koch, 2010:

199). Cash transfers are very empowering and have shown to motivate recipients to

break the cycle of poverty.

21
2.7 CULTURE OF DEPENDENCE ON STATE SOCIAL GRANTS

The payments of social grants is destroying rural communities and undermining the

ability of poor people to support them with subsistence agriculture (Fox, 1996;

Biyase, 2005). In campaigning against the widespread and increasing payment of

social welfare grants, Mahanjana who is the managing director of the National

Emergent Red Meat Producers Organisation (NERPO) and a national executive

member of AFASA, said that the union had passed a resolution which objected to

“just giving grants” to able bodied young people; noted that this resolution was taken

to ANC secretary Gwede Mantashe who asked AFASA to remove the resolution

because “they would be shooting themselves in the foot”, because of the people who

receives social grant bought their food from farmers belonging to the unions

(Kaseke, 2007:44).

They had since taken the resolution to the Department of Social Development.

Mahanjana said of the R89 billion that was allocated to support grants, R70 billion

went to food that supported farming establishment in the country. He said many

commercial farmers were losing labour because of social grants and claimed that 70

percent of this money “goes to alcohol”. The number of tavern has increased in rural

areas because people are getting money from grants. Half of the grant should be in

the form of a food voucher and the rest of cash could be used to buy clothes for the

children, Mahanjana (UN World Summit on Social Development). There is a huge

exodus of young active people to urban areas. They are getting grants but are not

staying in rural areas and the elderly are left behind. People are being destroyed.

If the government can take the quarter of the grant money and subsistence farming

with irrigation and tractors and an adequate transport system then production would

22
be much higher. The payments of social grants to more than 14million South African

prevents massive starvation, and is intended to ensure that children in poor

communities are well nourished. It also ensures that the elderly and disabled survive

under tough squalid and often strenuous economic conditions (Goldblatt, Rosa, and

Hall, 2006).

Agricultural experts and economists have warned that providing excessive grants

over an extended period could have a negative impact on the work ethic of our

society and on subsistence farming, which is “critical for ensuring food security.”

According to Jeffrey (2003), the situation as stands would have unfortunate

consequences, because if there were excessive social grants, it could lead to a

situation where base tax, which was already small, could be overstretched. They

should be a form limit and there is no doubt that it affects farming. It undermines the

essence of entrepreneurship (Jeffrey, 2003; Biyase, 2005).

Farming is complex and we are to maintain food security it will be done by

professionals in order to reap the benefits” (Jeffrey, 2003). He also believed that

productivity of subsistence farmers should be improved, pointing out that:

“Subsistence farmers have to be commercially viable first because society already

had too many rules and regulation which breed inefficiencies.” David Neves, a

researcher at the Institute for Poverty Land Agrarian Studies at the University of

Western Cape, said subsistence agriculture in South Africa was eroded 50 years ago

by the apartheid government’s homeland system, which confirmed black South

Africans to 13 percent of the land (Biyase, 2005:55).

This land, according to Neves, was inappropriate for agricultural use. The homelands

were underinvested as agricultural-zones and they not supposed to work because

23
that would mean competition for white commercial farmers. He was the view that the

R260 that was meant for children’s wellbeing ensured that children were not

malnourished. There was also proof that those who were supported by the grant

were better off in terms of weight and height. The problem with subsistence farming

did not lie in the social grant, but in the lack of support for smallholder farmers by the

government (Neves et al., 2009: 53).

David Norris, a professor of agriculture at the University of Limpopo, said although a

comprehensive study about this issue had not been conducted, there was clear

indication that social grants had significant impact on subsistence farming, where 80

percent of the plots in rural areas remained unused. Social grants usually paid more

than subsistence farming, mainly because it was underinvested. Subsistence

farming was critical in the quest for food security and the government should find

“Keen people,” as those who are not keen bring problems and impede progress

(Vonk, 2006:90).

Despite the good intentions, the positive trend of expanding the social welfare net

might not last forever. “Grants have increase rapidly in recent years (since South

Africa become a democracy in 1994), but we cannot continue expanding endlessly.

We might get to a point where grants will plateau” (Neves et al., 2009: 87). This

means that more sustainable ways to alleviate poverty need to be pushed- the main

one being job creation. “Creating job is a crucial instrument to reduce the number of

people who need grants. It should be a priority and be pursued aggressively”

(Laryea-Adjel: 2010: 66).

The effect of social security on labour markets like wise improves the poverty

reducing impact. While economic theory suggests that social grants may undermine

24
labour force participation; by reducing the opportunity cost of not working, evidence

on South African social grants demonstrates otherwise (Olivier and Kalula, 2003:

166).

Evidence demonstrate living in households receiving social grants is correlated with

a high success rate in finding employment, and that individuals in household

receiving social grants have increased both their labour force participation and

employments rates faster than those who live in household that do not receive social

grants (Sam et al. 2004; Posel et al. 2004; Patel et al., 2012).

This is most likely because social grants provide potential labour markets

participants with the scares resources and economic security necessary to invest in

high-risk/high-reward job search, while also improving the likelihood of finding of

employment. South Africa’s experience with social security has provided important

lessons for countries concerning with the eradicating poverty and reducing inequality

(Patel et al., 2012). Research has identified social grants as effectively targeted, and

as the most pro-poor item of government expenditure. Furthermore, social grants not

only provide households with income, they also support second order effects that

further reduce poverty. In particular, households that receive social grants are more

likely to send school children to school, provide better nutrition for children, and look

for work more intensively, extensively and successfully than do workers in

comparable households that do not receive social grants (Laryea-Adjel, 2010: 100).

2.8 THE CHALLENGES FACING SOCIAL SECURITY

The existing literature on social grants points out to the fact that there are significant

challenges relating to the distribution of child support grants in South Africa. Such

25
challenges can be broadly categorised into administration and resource based and

they are briefly discussed below.

2.8.1 Administration

According to Coetzee and Streak (2004: 205), the following appear to be the main

challenges: there is an administration overload in the processing of the child support

grant, and any single grant application can take anywhere between 20-90 days to

process. There seem to be different interpretations of the relevant legislation. There

is a lack of uniformity in the application of the means test within and across

provinces. There is a lack of clarity regarding the execution of the new child support

grant policy of adding an additional age cohort for registration annually on 1 April. In

1997 the management and administration of the social assistance has been

designated to provincial social development departments. The current system is

beset by a number of deficiencies, like poor management, weakness in the

distribution and development of human resources, inadequate infrastructure and

information technology support systems.

Those who apply to the child support grant must provide a whole range of

documentation that is not always readily available from potential beneficiaries.

(Barnyard, 2006: 847)In some instances the applicants are purpose of identification

of the child where there is no birth certificate (Goldblatt, Rosa, & Hall, 2006). A social

security official do not designated as commissioner of oath are required to obtain a

clinic card for the certify documents and attest affidavits. In is desirable that offices

or mobile units of the department of Home Affairs be located close to department of

social development (Goldblatt, Rosa, & Hall, 2006). The failure to institute private

maintenance claims also prove to be a barrier to the processing of applications of the

26
child support grant. Again, as Goldblatt, et al (2006: 2) indicated the application for

child support grants should process as normal, without putting on hold because of a

lengthy court process.

In some instances chief are involved for the proof of residency or proof of customary

marriage for the application of child support grant. (It was also been argued that the

income test discriminated against households with a large number of dependents.

According to Taylor committee, a key obstacle in the implementation of the social

security system since 1994 has been the means-test (Brynard, 2006).

In response to the problem associated with the means test, the Taylor committee

recommended the introduction of a universal grant to all South African, in terms of

the Basic Income Grant. This would be set approximately at the size of the existing

child support grant and introduction in a phased manner, beginning with the

extension of child support grant to all children aged fewer than 18. No means test

would be required, everyone the in country, rich and poor, would receive the grant,

which would therefore act like a tax rebate for upper-income recipients. The

universal character of the grant would, it is argued economic substantially on the

government’s scare administrative resources, while at the same time eliminating the

economic cost arising from the distortionary nature of the means test (National

Treasury, 2003).

The scheme has been advocated widely by civil society groups, and also the

Minister for Social Development, who declared that “ a Basic Income Grant system is

one of the excellent ideas we might consider introducing .Surveys of the provincial

departments for the means test have identified contradictory interpretation of the

test, undermining efforts of uniform delivery standards. The administration

27
requirements associated with the means test are also generally thought to be the

main barrier to greater take-up of social grants among poor households (Samson,

Lee & Ndlebe, 2004: 345).

This is particularly so in the poorest rural areas, where the poor have the least

access to the official identification documents necessary to access social grants.

Government do not prioritise foster care grant applications and magistrates are

impatient and disrespectful to foster guardians or parents in court. That is where the

state falls short in delivery. Our health and education systems are fairly inefficient,

and R250 a month does not make up for that. (Neves, 2010)

2.8.2 Resources

The primary responsibility for estimating the budget for the programme on an annual

basis and allocating funds from the total provincial budget to the CSG programme

lies with the provincial social development departments. A large share of provincial

budgets is made up of their equitable share revenue. Hence most of the money

allocated to and spent on the child support grant programme comes from the

equitable shares of provincial government. The provinces allocate their equitable

share at their discretion.

Through monitoring of the child support grant, attention has been drawn to the

question of whether the amount allocated to the child support grant through the

equitable share formula is sufficient to finance the implementation of the grant in the

provinces. It was argued that the equitable share formula took insufficient account of

the cost of implementation to all eligible children, and this led to an adjustment in

weighting for social welfare from 17% to 18% in budget 2002 (National Treasury,

2002).

28
Total spending in the fiscal year 2004/05 amounted to R41 billion. This presented

10.2% of total government spending, and 3.1% of GDP. The government has

steadily increased spending on social grants, in both nominal and real terms. In

2000/01spending amounted to R18 billion, which represented 2.0% of GDP (SASSA

Annual Report 2000/01).

By 2006/07, national treasury projects nominal spending to increase to R54 billion

and 3.4% GDP (National Treasury, 2003). This limited resources posed a huge risk

for effective and efficient service delivery. Often challenges were identified as

demand exceeding available resources, a 60% vacancy rate delays in finalising

project through shortage of funding, the lack of infrastructure, and the limitation that

were placed on rural reach. Communication and access to grants were also

problematic.

2.9 CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter was essentially to provide a theoretical basis that

undergirds the emergence of social security system in the South African context. To

this end, the historical evolution of social security system was clearly provided as

well as the comprehensive conceptualisation and contextualisation of the notion of

Child Support Grant. The challenges that are faced by the South African Social

Security Agency have also been outlined. The next chapter will discuss the research

design and methodology that was used to collect data in this study. This will be done

by indicating the research approach, kinds of data, target population, data collection

and analysis methods.

29
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the research design and methodology adopted in this study.

This study used both qualitative and quantitative research design. The targeted

groups were from service centres in Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality, Limpopo

province. The purposive sampling method was utilized to identify key informants.

This method was advantageous and easier to understand. Each service centre in

local office had an equal chance of being selected for the sample. The chapter will

also provide the area of study, population sampling and data analysis.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

Mouton (199:107) described a research design as:” [a] goal the research has set for

himself/herself”. Mouton further stated that the research design could be viewed as

the blue print of a research project that preceded the actual research process. The

research design therefore specified clearly what a researcher wanted to find and

determined the best way to do it. The present research study employed qualitative

method to gather and analyse data. Although the research was qualitative, some of

the data were quantitative but the analysis was basically qualitative. The qualitative

30
method used in the study incorporated consideration of the following: the

respondents, the activities that participants were asked to perform and data analysis.

3.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.3.1 Study Area

SASSA Lepelle Nkumpi Local Office provides services to communities within the

Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality with a population of 241,414 (Statics South Africa

Community Survey 2007). The municipality is predominantly rural and with a total of

110 settlements. Approximately, 95% of its land falls under the jurisdiction of

Traditional Authorities.

The envisaged study will be conducted in six South African Social Security Agency

service centres, namely, Thabamoopo, Groothoek, Magatle, Mathabatha, Seleteng

and Mafefe in Lepelle-Nkumpi local office. The Lepelle-Nkumpi local office is

situated in Lebowakgomo, which is 55km from Polokwane, and falls within the

Lepelle-Nkumpi Local Municipality, under the Capricorn District.

3.3.2 Population

The target group of the present study was the beneficiaries of the Child Support

Grant, community and South African Social Security Agency officials in

villages/service centres where social grants are offered. This target group was

31
chosen for a specific purpose namely, to find out whether beneficiaries are using the

Child Support Grant for its intended purposes in Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality.

3.3.3 Sample Size and Selection Method

McMillan and Schumacher (2001:175) put sample size and selection method as a

method whereby a researcher selects particular elements from the target population

that will be representative or informative about the topic of interest.

About 19 villages were selected to complete categories of questionnaires. Purpose

sampling a particular method was used because according to De Vos (2005:328), in

purposive sampling, a particular case is chosen because it illustrates some feature

or process that is of interest for a particular study. It is further indicated that in

purposive sampling the researcher searches for information-rich key information,

groups, places or events to study. The samples were chosen because they are likely

to be knowledgeable and informative about the phenomenon that is investigated

(McMillan and Schumacher, 1998:378). The researcher believed that the targeted

group, stakeholder in child support grants in Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality in

Limpopo are likely to be knowledgeable about their abuse or usage.

3.3.4 Data collection method

Structured interview questionnaires and literature were used to collect data. Data

were collected using secondary sources from appropriate and relevant written

documents such as policies and legislative framework governing SASSA e.g. South

African Social Security Act 9 of 2004 and Social Assistant Act 13 of 2004. The

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996. Primary data from the

respondents were also used. The present researcher’s method of data collection

32
entailed personal interviews with the respondents through a structured interview

questionnaire.

3.3.5 Data Analysis

Data were analysed manually. The researcher interpreted data collected from the

respondents and gave them meaning and translated them so that they were

understandable. Data interpretation and analysis was done by finding out how

respondents saw the abuse of child support grant by beneficiaries, how they defined

the situation or what it meant to them.

3.4 CONCLUSION

This chapter discussed the research design and methodology used in the study.

The study area, population and sample size were also discussed. The researcher

designed a structured questionnaire for the respondents and interview schedule for

the key informants as the data collection instruments. Through the research design

the researcher was able to come with a detailed way of how the research would be

conducted to achieve the aim of the whole study. The population that was chosen to

find out why community have perceptions about child support grant beneficiaries

usage was relevant because they have quality knowledge of what is happening in

the community.

The villages visited were chosen using purposive sampling method. The participants

in those villages were regarded as knowledgeable in as far as usage and abuse of

child support grants is concerned. The participants in this case are beneficiaries,

community and South African Social Security Agency employees. Sufficient

33
information was derived from the participants. The data collection was successfully

done through a structured interview questionnaire. The data collection were

interpreted and translated for it to be understandable.

In the chapter that follows the study will concentrate on the research findings,

analysis and interpretation of data.

34
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents the finding, analysis and interpretations of data. This

study was conducted in Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality. The purpose of

the study was on communities’ perceptions on the usage of child support

grants. The study used the qualitative approach in which a structured

interview questionnaire was used. The questionnaire targeted the

beneficiaries, communities and employees.

4.2 RESEARCH FINDINGS

The study used a structured interview questionnaire to obtain information from

the respondents, who were beneficiaries, community and employees. The

structured interview questionnaire consisted of questions for beneficiaries for

the community and for the employees. The three categories of the

respondents were to respond to their specific questions. The purpose of the

investigation was to determine community perception on child support grants.

4.2.1 Data from beneficiaries

Forty six structured interviewed questions were conducted with beneficiaries

from 19 villages in Lepelle Nkumpi South African Social Security Agency local

office. Those villages includes the following: Hlakano, Makurung, Zebediela,

Phalakwane, Mafefe, Mathibela, Serobaneng, Makotse, Mankweng,

35
 Mamabolo, Lebowakgomo zone A,F and R, Dithabaneng, communities, pay

points, rural and towns.

The data are representative of semi-urban and rural in Lepelle Nkumpi local

South African Social Security Agency local office. Beneficiaries were required

to state their biographical information such as how long have you been

receiving, how much do they receive and how do they use their money. The

beneficiaries were also required to say whether the money is sufficient to

cater the needs of the children. The beneficiaries were also required to say

what they buy with the money.

They also had to point out their opinion as to whether child support grant is

received by person in need.

Data from beneficiaries unfolded as follows:

4.2.1.1 Gender

This was asked in order to check between the males and females which

gender groups is mostly coming to SASSA offices to apply child support grant.

Table 1: Gender

Male Female

04 42

Most of the interviewees, (42) are females whereas (04) are males. The

conclusion drawn from this is that most of the beneficiaries that receive child

support grants are female whereas males are few. Males seem to be few in

most cases because children are taken care by females in the community.

36
 Males are shy in nature when coming to social grant applications because

they thought that traditionally females are the custodian of the children and

because they carried children for nine months.

4.2.1.2 Race

This was conducted to find out which racial grouping in South Africa suffer the

most economically.

Table 2: Race

African White Indian Coloured

46 0 0 0

All the respondents interviewed are African. This gives a clear picture that

most of the black people are the one whom suffers poverty stricken mostly

than any other racial grouping hence they depends on child support grant to

raise their children.

The other reason may be the interview was conducted at rural areas because

Lepelle Nkumpi local municipality is dominantly rural hence the outcome

shows the African seemed to be suffers the most economically.

4.2.1.3 Age

The interview was conducted to check which beneficiary ages in the

community are applying child support grant and also determines the reasons

behind the high number.

37
Table 3: Age

15-17 18-21 22-25 26+

0 3 5 38

Beneficiaries were interviewed about their ages, and they responded as

follows that, (3) are between 18-21, (5) are between 22-25 and (38) are 26

and above. Beneficiaries were interviewed to determine which age group are

the recipients of child support grant. Only to found that most of child support

grant recipients are 26 years and above whereas few are between 18-21

years of age. This could mean that those beneficiaries started to bear children

at early stage between 18-21 years of age and now is accumulative.

4.2.1.4 Occupation

This interview was done precisely to find out amongst government officials,

self-employed people and unemployed who actually access child support

grant and the reason thereof.

Table 4: Occupation

Government Self employed Unemployed

officials

3 3 40

38
Beneficiaries were interviewed about their occupation, and they responded as

follows that, (3) are self-employed, (40) are unemployed and (3) are

government officials.

In most cases where people are not kept busy with anything in their mind

became the battle filled of the devil, other opted to practice immoral activities

hence most of the beneficiaries felt pregnant and starts competing in getting

more children. The reason for the small number for government officials and

the self-employed people may be most of them do not aware of the means

test because to access child support grant you must meet the requirement as

per your means test because everybody has the right to apply child support

grant as long as you meet the requirements.

4.2.1.5 Marital Status

This interview was conducted to find out which amongst the categories suffer

most economically and also the reason behind this thereof.

Table 5: Marital status

Unmarried Widows Married Not Responded

30 5 2 9

Beneficiaries were interviewed about their marital status, and they responded

as follows that, (30) are unmarried, (5) are widows, (2) are married and (9) not

responded. Child support grants receives by person who is legible in terms of

39
 Social Assistant Act no. 13 of 2004 requirements and this is an indication that

most of the beneficiaries are single mothers hence they are compelled to

access child support grant to raise their children because they qualify.

But again to be married does mean that you are not allowed to apply child

support grant but the criteria in terms of means test is looked into for

qualifications. The small number of widow it may be resulted as means test

because some will find they have money in the banks and also their assets.

4.2.1.6 Educational Level.

This interview was conducted to check whether the intention of teenage

pregnancy and ignorance amongst these categories was done due to lack of

education.

Table 6: Educational level

Primary School High School Tertiary Not responded

4 32 7 3

Beneficiaries were interviewed about their education level, and they

responded as follows that (4) were at primary school, (7) were at tertiary, (32)

were at high school and (2) were not responded. It is not surprise to see few

beneficiaries at primary level hence most beneficiaries are seen at high

school level being the most recipient of child support grant, the reason being

that person starts realise herself/himself as an adults at high school level is

where now teenage pregnancy become rife. And also peer pressure may

40
 cause high number of females fell pregnant because they competing with one

another in going to salon and buying expensive perfumes.

4.2.1.7 Where do you Reside/Live

Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality is dominantly rural and has one township

and the interview was conducted to find out amongst the two categories which

is affected by poverty and also the reason behind this thereof.

Table 7: Residence

Rural Urban Township

44 0 2

Beneficiaries were interviewed about their place of residence, and they

responded as follows that, (44) reside at rural areas whereas (2) reside at

township. Most beneficiaries who were interviewed mostly are found in rural

villages whereas few beneficiaries are found in semi-urban.

This could mean that most of the people in rural villages are not working

whereas most of the people in semi-rural are working since child support

grant is received by poor of the poorest. People in township seemed not

receiving child support grant because most of them are working and their

income seemed better when you compare with people living in rural areas.

And may be another reason can people living in township are more exposed

to employment opportunities than people living in rural areas.

41
 4.2.1.8 Kind of House you live in

This was done to find out amongst these categories as to whether the people

living in certain dwelling will be a proof that they are poverty stricken or is

because they passed the means test and therefor they qualify for child

support grant.

Table 8: Type of dwelling

Shack House Brick House RDP House Traditional

dwelling

1 27 17 1

Beneficiaries were interviewed about what kind of house do they live, and

they responded as follows that, (1) live in shack, (26) live in brick house, (16)

live in RDP house, (1) live in traditional dwelling and (1) did not responded.

Despite the fact that most of the beneficiaries are living in the brick house

than beneficiaries that are living shack and RDP house, beneficiaries

continues to experience poverty but again to live in brick house is not an

indication that everything is well and also to live in brick house is not the

prerequisite to access child support grants.

4.2.1.9 Period of Receiving

The interview was conducted to check as to whether how long people have

knowledge about government programmes in South Africa such as social

grants.

42
 Table 9: Period of receive child support grant

Less than 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years & above

2 2 7 34

As to how long the interviewees have been receiving, they responded as

follows that, (2) were receiving for the period of less than 1 year, (2) were

receiving the period of 2 years, (7) were receiving the period of 3 years, and

(34) were receiving the period of 4 years and above whereas (1) did not

responded.

Most beneficiaries were long being receiving child support grants, this an

indication that most African experiences poverty in their daily lives. Another

reason may be politicians are encouraging the communities to make that they

access child support grant as a tool for election campaigns.

4.2.1.10 Number of children you have who receive social grant

The interview was conducted to find out as to whether people were

intentionally competing to one another to have more children so that they can

receive more money.

Table 10: Children who receive social grant

1 Children 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children Non respond

19 12 9 5 1

43
 As to how many children do interviewees receive social grant, they responded

as follows that, (19) beneficiaries has 1 child, (12) beneficiaries have 2

children, (9) beneficiaries have 3 children, (5) beneficiaries have 4 children

and (1) beneficiary did not responded.

Generally, there is an indication that new beneficiaries are applying child

support grants as compare to the beneficiaries whom are having 2, 3, and 4

children. This small number of children it can be an indication that

beneficiaries realised that they grant that they are receiving cannot meet the

basic needs of their children and bear more children will cost them a lot

financially.

4.2.1.11 Amount Receive

The interview was conducted to find out the impact of child support grant in

the respective communities.

Table 11: Amount received

Receiving Receiving Receiving Receiving

R280.00 R560.00 R840.00 R1120.00

19 12 9 5

As to how much do interviewees were receiving, they responded as follows

that, (19) is receiving R280.00, (12) is receiving R560.00, (9) is receiving

R840.00, and (5) is receiving R1120.00. Most beneficiaries that receives

R280.00 are new and are unmarried whereas beneficiaries that receives

much amount found that they are married but their husband are no longer

working and the only way to raise their children is to access social grant.

44
4.2.1.12 How do use the Money

This is done to check as to whether people who receive child support grant are

using it correctly or properly for the benefit of their children.

Table 12: Grant usage

Food,Clothing,Transport,Electricity,Burial Non response

& Education

44 2

As to how the interviewees uses the money, they responded as follows that,

(44) uses money for food, clothes, transport, electricity, crèche and burial and

(2) did not responded. All of them believe that money from child support grant

are uses correctly as it requires by the Social Assistant Act, no.13 of 2004.

4.2.1. Is the grant sufficient to cater the needs of the children?

The question was put to probe whether the child support grant that is received

by beneficiaries meets their needs

Table 13: Grants sufficient or not

Sufficient Not Sufficient Non response

13 31 2

Fewer community members (13) indicated that money are sufficient to cater

the needs of the children whereas most of the community members (31) are

not satisfied and (2) did not responded. Generally, beneficiaries are not happy

45
with the amount of social grants they are receiving from South African Social

Agency as they found not catering the needs of their children. They need a

living wage compare to what they are currently receiving. Properly most of the

African are child headed families thus the reason people found the grant they

are receiving being not sufficient that can cater their needs.

The number of beneficiaries who are receiving child support grant are high

than beneficiaries who receive other social grant from government as such it

will not be ease for the government to increase the grant the way they

desires.

4.2.1.14 Other thighs you use the grant for

The interview was conducted to find out the alleges abuse of child support

grant by beneficiaries.

Table 14: Other grant usage

Personal gain Assist other family Non response

members

18 15 13

18 uses child support grant money for their personal gain whereas 15 uses to

help other family and 13 did not respond. Generally, beneficiaries uses child

support grant for their own thing instead of assisting their children.

Each beneficiary should abide to the directive of social assistant act, which

requires beneficiary to use the money to the needs of the child. If beneficiaries

46
 do not use the child support grant money the way the Act is intended the

government have no choice but to cancel the grant because it means that the

beneficiaries do not need for their children.

4.2.1.15 What do you buy

This was done to check as to whether beneficiaries who are receiving child

support grant are buying things as per the needs of their children.

Table 15: What do you buy?

Social club Clothes & groceries Not response

4 40 2

In responding to what beneficiaries buy, they responded as follows that, (4)

pay for social clubs, (40) buy clothes and groceries whereas (2) did not

responded. This generally indicates that beneficiary’s uses child support grant

to buy clothes and groceries which is the way Social Assistant Act, 13 of 2004

section 19 (1) requires that the recipient’s child support grants should meet

the needs of the children.

4.2.1.16 CSG is Received by Person in Need

The interview was conducted to find out as to whether people who are

receiving child support grant are the correct people because they are other

people who are defrauding the system.

Table 16: What do you buy?

47
 Person in need Person not in need Not response

38 4 4

You will find those people receiving child support grant while the child is non -

existing or the same people do not stay with the child.

Most of the community members (38) indicated that child support grant is

received by person in need whereas (4) community members indicated not

satisfied and (4) did not responded.

The respondents confirm that child support grants is received by the person in

need, this is displayed by the fact that most of the interviewees agreed to one

another. Even if most respondents indicated that child support grant is

receiving by person in need that does not mean they all use the money for

what is intended to as per Social Assistant Act ,13 of 2004. The Act requires

that everyone who receive child support grant must be person in need.

4.2.2 Data from community members

Questionnaires were personally distributed to communities in the villages

such as, Hlakano, Makurung, Zebediela, Phalakwane, Mafefe, Mathibela,

Serobaneng, Makotse, Mankweng, Lekgwareng, Mamabolo, Lebowakgomo

zone A, F and R, Dithabaneng, Ga Makgoba ,Mogoto, Moletlane, GG, so that

they can give their observations regarding the use of child support grant by

beneficiaries. Fifty eight structured interview questionnaires were conducted

with communities from (19) villages in Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality. The

interview questionnaires were conducted in the same villages where

48
community structured interview questionnaires were conducted. The data are

representative of semi-urban and rural villages. Community were required to

give their opinion as to whether child support grant is received by person in

need.

The community were required to state whether child support grant

encourages pregnancy and what do they think child support grant

beneficiaries normally use their money for. The beneficiaries were also

required to give any observation regarding the alleges abuse of child support

grant, how long have they been observing and where did they observed

specifically. They also had to point out what do they suggest South African

Social Security Agency should do to correct the situation. Data from

community unfolded as follows:

4.2.2.1 Child Support Grant receive by person in need

This questionnaires was repeatedly asked to find out as to whether the

researcher will find different opinion as it was asked from the beneficiaries.

Most of the community members (37) are satisfied those child support grants

are receive by person in need. 20 indicated that they are not satisfied by

person who are receiving child support grant whereas (1) did not responded.

The respondents believe that most beneficiaries receives child support grant

because there is a need for them whereas few respondents do not believe

that child support grant receive by person in need. The beneficiaries and

community believes that child support grant is receives by the person in need.

49
4.2.2.2 Child Support Grant encourages pregnancy

There are unconfirmed allegations that government is encouraging teenage

pregnancy with the introduction of child support grant and the interview was

conducted to test the validity of such allegations. Most of the community

members (44) are satisfied that child support grant encourages pregnancy.

Fourteen (14) did not did not agree that child support grant encourages

pregnancy. This gives a clear picture that most beneficiaries become

pregnant with an intention of applying of child support grant and this is seen

during payment day when they will leave class rooms being empty, and for

that reason other school girls get tempted to enters into love relationship so

that at end they become pregnant and ultimately they give birth in order to

apply child support grant.

4.2.2.3 Usage of Child Support Grant by beneficiaries

Since they is an out- cry from the community that beneficiaries are misusing

child support grant and it was proper to conduct an interviews to validate or

invalidate the allegations so that proper conclusions can be made. As to what

interviewees think about the beneficiaries’ usage of child support grant, they

responded as follows that (30) says to buy food and clothes whereas (28)

says is for alcohol, playing cards and gambling. There is a believe that

beneficiaries are using child support grant money for alcohol, gambling and

playing cards while most respondents believe that beneficiaries uses child

50
support grant money such as buying food and clothes for their children since

the recipient of child support grant are living within the communities.

4.2.2.4 Observation regarding the alleges abuses of Child Support Grant

The interview was conducted to check how rife the alleges abuse of child

support grant by beneficiaries occurring and how true was it. As to any

observation regarding the alleges abuse of child support grant, they

responded as follows that (47) says is for gambling, alcohol, drugs, tobacco,

hair making, playing cards and own thing, (1) says no child support abuse

whereas (10) did not responded to the question.

The fact that few believe that beneficiaries uses the child support grant money

correctly but (47) of community member believe that child support grant

money are uses incorrectly such as gambling, alcohol, drugs, hair making,

playing cards and their own thing. Beneficiary stays and lives in the

community the above mentioned abuse of child support grant money is being

observed by community members since the introduction of child support grant

in South Africa.

4.2.2.5 Period of observations

This was done to confirm the allegation made that beneficiaries are abusing

child support grant by asking years of observations. As to how long the

interviewees have been observing, they responded as follows that, (42)

observed three years and above, (9) observed more than three years, (3)

51
observed two years whereas (4) did not responded to the question. The fact

that some community members observed the abuse of child support grant

money few years by beneficiaries, that confirms that the abuse of child

support grant money beneficiaries are continuing as most community member

are observing this abuse on monthly basis.

4.2.2.6 Places of observations

The allegations need to be confirmed to avoid general statement and this

interview was conducted to come with specific villages so that we know in

Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality where actually the alleges abuses of child

support grant is rife so that precautionary can be considered. As to where the

interviewees observed specifically, they responded as follows that, (1)

Hlakano village, (1) Makurung village, Zebediela village, (1) Mankweng

village, 1 Hwelereng village, 1 Makotse village, (1) Lebowakgomo township

zone A, 1 Lebowakgomo township zone F, ( 2) Lebowakgomo township zone

R, (2) Mathibela village, (2) Serobaneng village,( 2) Phalakwane village, (3)

Mafefe area, (3) Mamabolo village, (3) Dithabaneng village, (4) in

community,(4) pay points,(7) rural and towns whereas (19) did not specify. It

is discovered that in each village where the interview was conduct the abuse

of child support grant is taking place. Generally, it is believes that even

villages where the interviews did not conducted, the conclusion will be child

support grant money is abuse, even though the degrees of abuse are not

tested because of the villages sampled.

52
4.2.2.7 Suggestion to SASSA to Correct the Situation

As to what the interviewees suggest to South African Social Security Agency

to correct the situation, they responded as follows that, (17) suggested

voucher system, (13) suggested to be monitored by community development

workers (CDW) and social workers, (8) suggested that create jobs so that

they could work, (5) suggested that create jobs so that they work for the

money, (4) suggested child support grant to be terminated, (3) suggested that

child support grants be receive by their grannies, (3) suggested that child

support grant be equal across the board, (3) suggested that beneficiaries be

workshop on how to use child support grant through imbizos whereas 2 did

not responded to the question. Most community members believe that if South

African Social Security Agency can introduce the voucher system it will stop

the abuse of child support grant money since the beneficiaries will go to shop

to buy what is allowed only nothing else.

4.2.3 Data from South African Social Security Agency employees

The interviews were conducted to SASSA employees to give their opinion

about their knowledge in the working environment when executing their daily

responsibilities. Thirteen (13) structured interview questionnaires were

conducted with South African Social Security Agency employees from six

service points (Groothoek, Mafefe, Magatle, Mathabatha, Seleteng and

Thabamoopo) in Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality. The interview

questionnaires were conducted in the same service points, where South

African Social Security

53
 Agency employees structured interview questionnaires were conducted. The

data are representative of semi-urban and rural service point in the area.

South African Social Security Agency employees were required to state where

are they stationed, how long have they been employed by South African

Social Security Agency, what are their current job level and what are their

responsibilities in their current position.

South African Social Security Agency employees were also required to state

what are the requirements to receive the child support grant and whether the

child support grants application are vulnerable to receive assistance. South

African Social Security Agency were required to say between which ages

girls/women are coming to South African Social Security Agency office for

child support application, what should South African Social Security Agency

do to close the loopholes in its child support grant requirement, whether are

they any follow up when the child support grant has been approved and also

whether child support grant are receives by people who are really in need.

The South African Social Security Agency employees were required to give

their thought about child support grant recipients. Data from South African

Social Security Agency employees unfolded as follows:

4.2.3.1 Stationed

The interview was directed to different service centres in Lepelle Nkumpi local office

to check and establish the community perception on the usage of child support grant

by beneficiaries. One employee out of (13), is stationed at Mafefe service centre,

whereas (1) is at Mathabatha service centre, (2) are at Seleteng service centre, (2)

are at Magatle service centre, (3) are at Groothoek service centre and (4) are at

54
Thabamoopo service centre. This was done to check and gather data from

respective service so that global picture may determine about this study because the

employees are interacting with the beneficiaries in daily basis.

4.2.3.2 Period of employment

This was done to find out and dig data from the new and old employees so that the

data can be determined on community perception on child support grant. As to how

long the interviewees have been employed, they responded as follows that (5) were

employed for a period of 8 years, 1 for the period of 1 year, (1) for the period of 12

years, (2) for the periods of 7 years, 1 for the period of 10 years and (3) for the

period of fourteen years.

Table 1: Employment period

1 year 7 years 8 years 10 years 12 years 14 years

1 2 5 1 1 3

The intention was to determine and be able to evaluate and analyse the data that

will provided objectively knowing that the data collected are true since were collected

from the respective experience employees.

4.2.3.3 Current job level

It was significant to raise this question to test the alleged abuse of child

support grants.

Table 2: Job level

55
 Level 5 Level 7 Level 8

9 2 2

As to what are their job levels, they responded as follows that (9) are at level

(5), (2) are at level (7) and (2) are at level eight. The intention was to

determine and be able to evaluate and analyse the data that will provided

objectively knowing that the data collected are true since were collected from

the experience people. South African Social Security Agency employees

especially the administrators and the verifying officer are administrating and

approve social grants in daily basis and they observe and seen this activities.

4.2.3.4 Responsibilities in current position

It was significant to raise such question to test the alleged abuse of child support

grants.

Table 3: Responsibilities

Administering social Verifying application Team leaders

grant files

9 2 2

As to what are their responsibilities, they responded as follows that, (9) are

administrating social grants, (2) are verifying application files and (2) are team

leaders. The intention was to determine and be able to evaluate and analyse the

data that will provided objectively knowing that the data collected are true since were

collected from the experience people. South African Social Security Agency

56
employees especially the administrators and the verifying officer are administrating

and approve social grants in daily basis and they observe and seen this activities.

4.2.3.5 Requirements of Child Support Grant application

This question was raise to check the loopholes that South African Social Security

Agency Act was caused when drafting and approving the Social Assistant Act, 2004

and the South African Social Security Act, 2004. All the responded (13) provided the

child support grant requirements as follows that, RSA 13 digit green ID book,

birthday certificate of child under 18 years of age, marriage certificate of an

applicant, proof of income and South African Social Security Agency affidavit. Since

all of them agreed with the requirements to apply/access child support grants but the

conclusion will be that the requirements need to be reviewed since they are opened

for abuse.

4.2.3.6 Vulnerability of Child Support Grant applicant

The interview was conducted to find out whether the beneficiaries of child support

grant are vulnerable to receive monies or that is done because is the government

programme.

Table 4: Vulnerability

Agree Don’t agree

57
 10 3

As to whether child support grant applicants are vulnerable to receive an assistance,

(10) employees have indicated that beneficiaries are vulnerable whereas (3)

employees did not agree. Most of South African Social Security Agency employees

believe that beneficiaries are vulnerable, this was seen when the head of the family

is no longer working and they will come to South African Social Security Agency

office to apply for social grants to raise their children while some few South African

Social Security Agency employees believe that beneficiaries just come to apply child

support grant because they qualify according to South African Social Security

Agency Act,2004 and Social Assistant Act,2004 criteria to access grants. The

conclusion will be since the introduction of child support grant by government most

families were relieved though others apply for the sake of making applications.

4.2.3.7 Ages group for girls/women

This was determining to check which years of the beneficiaries are more

prevalent in the application of child support grant and also the reason behind

this.

Table 5: Age group

14-20 years old 20-25 years old 25 years & above

11 1 1

58
 As to which ages are girls coming to South African Social Security Agency for

child support grant application, they responded as follows that, (11) indicated

that between 14-20 years old, (1) indicated that between 20-25 years old and

(1) indicated that 25 years and above. Most believe that beneficiaries that

come to South African Social Security Agency to apply for child support grant,

mostly are between 14-20 years old and most this women are still schooling

either at high school or tertiary and this is an evidence that child support

grant encourages teenage pregnancy looking number of years.

4.2.3.8 Closing of loopholes in Child Support Grant requirements

The interviews were conducted to probe which other strict measures can be

developed to close the loopholes in getting the child support grant within the

agency.

Table 6: Closing of loopholes

Monitoring system Revisit Thorough Maximum Primary Strengthening Non

policies screening of 2 caregiver oath with response

children police &

receiving traditional

grant authorities

6 2 1 1 1 1 1

As to what South African Social Security Agency should do to close the loopholes

requirements, they responded as follows that, (6) says establish/introduce monitoring

systems, (2) says revisits policies, (1) says screen the applicant thoroughly, (1)says

59
maximum number of two child per biological parent, (1) says primary care giver be

(18) years and above and pay single amount to primary care giver not an amount per

child, (1) strengthen the relationship with police and traditional authorities and (1) did

not respond to the question.

Most South African Social Security Agency employees agreed that the Agency does

have system that could curb the abuse of child support grant and they believe that it

is not the requirements but is the weakness of the monitoring system is not place.

The conclusion is that South African Social Security Agency should introduce and

strengthen the monitoring systems either electronically or human resources.

4.2.3.9 Follow up after Child Support Grant application has been approved

The interview was conducted to check whether SASSA make follow ups after

child support grant has been approved in order to check whether beneficiaries

use money correctly. All the respondents (9) indicated that there is no follow

up after child support grant application has been approved whereas four

respondents indicated that there is follow up. Most South African Social

Security Agency employees confirms that after the social grants have been

approved there is follow ups make from the Agency to check and monitor the

use of child support grant. As long as the Agency do not make some follow

up, beneficiaries will continue abusing child support grant money. The

conclusion will be South African Social Security Agency should introduce

internal monitoring systems to reduce the abuse of child support grant money.

4.2.3.10 People in need

60
 By observation it was vital to find out whether from the employees that this

beneficiaries really need this child support grant due to poverty stricken or

they do apply because others receiving it.

Table 6: People in need and not in need

In need Not in need

7 6

The majority of the South African Social Security Agency employees, namely

seven indicated that child support grant receives by people who are really in

need whereas six employees indicated that does receive by in need. Most of

South African Social Security Agency employees believe that beneficiaries

are really in need, this was seen when the head of the family is no longer

working and they will come to South African Social Security Agency office to

apply for social grants to raise their children while some few South African

Social Security Agency employees believe that beneficiaries just come to

apply child support grant because they qualify according to South African

Social Security Agency criteria to access grants.

4.2.3.11 Thought about Child Support Grant.

The employees were requested to give their thought as per their experience,

knowledge and observation regarding usages of child support grant by beneficiaries.

The question to give their thought was raise specifically to come with an input that

could assists South African Social Security Agency to improve their system when

implementing child support grant.

Table 7: Thoughts about Child Support Grant

61
Education Serious Screening Loop Primary In Own Child Misuse Increase Non

Review holes caregiver need purpose benefit response

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

The interviewees gave their thought as follows that, 1 indicated that they need to be

educated on how to make use of their grants, 1 indicated that there should be

serious reviews on continuous basis, 1 indicated that involvement of external bodies

to assist with the screening to determine who are really in need, 1 indicated that

This question was raise to check the loopholes that South African Social Security

Agency Act might cause when drafting and approving the Social Assistant Act,2004

and child support grants is good for people who are older than 25 years and who

have responsibility and the love for their children, 1 indicated that this grant must be

given to primary care giver not this biological parents, 1 indicated that child support

grant recipients must be people who are really in need of child support grant to live,

1 indicated that they do not use the money for the intended reasons i.e. poverty

alleviation.

They use it for their personal gain, 1 indicated that mostly they use this grant for the

benefit of their children as they deserve it, 1 indicated that some recipients misuse

child support by playing cards or gambling instead of using the grants properly, 1

indicated that South African Social Security Agency must increase the amount

because there is no evidence that unemployment will end soon and 3 did not give

their thought. Each one of South African Social Security Agency employee brought

his/her thought to be considered and each one has applied his/her mind and is for

South African Social Security Agency to select one or two thought that they think it

could be workable for the Agency.

62
4.3 CONCLUSION

All the participants interviewed namely the beneficiaries, community members and

SASSA employees responded differently to different questions posed. This is

supported by the fact that the beneficiaries receives child support grant and they

receives R280-00 monthly. The uses money to buy food, clothes, electricity and pay

transport, crèche and burials.

The community members responded that child support grants encourages

pregnancy. Community members observed that child support grants is abuses by

beneficiaries in gambling, alcohol, drugs, tobacco, hair saloon, playing cards and

own thing. Community member suggested that voucher system be implemented,

child support grant be monitored by community development workers and social

workers, child support grants be receives by the grannies, child support grant be

equal across the board, child support grant be terminated and also suggested that

jobs should be created so that they work for the money.

South African Social Security Agency employees observed that child support grant

applicants are vulnerable to receive assistance and most child support grant

applicants are between 14-20 years old. South African Social Security Agency

should close the loophole by screening the applicant thoroughly, introduce

monitoring system, revisits policies, maximum number of two child per biological

parent to receive grant and primary care giver be 18 years and above and also to

63
pay single amount to primary care giver not an amount per child. The next chapter

concludes the study and gives recommendation.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents conclusions drawn from the research findings on communities’

perceptions’ usage on child support grant in Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality,

Limpopo Province. It also provides the recommendations that should be considered

to close the loopholes of South African Social Security Agency policy and ensure

that beneficiaries are not abusing and misusing child support grant.

5.1.1 Data from beneficiaries

Beneficiaries are interested in using the child support grant correctly. Most of them

are able to use child support grant to buy their children food, clothes and pay

transport, crèche, electricity and burial society. Beneficiaries who always receives

child support grants are black females, unmarried, uneducated, unemployed and

lives at rural areas.

Beneficiaries who seldom receives child support grant are self-employed, married,

black males and lives at semi-urban areas. It can be concluded, therefore, that

beneficiaries in rural areas are receiving child support grant because they are

uneducated and unemployed, hence they are vulnerable to receive assistance.

Beneficiaries living in semi-urban are not able to receives child support grant due to

the fact that they are married and also because they are employed.

64
The findings revealed that most beneficiaries are using child support grant correctly.

The finding reveals further that beneficiaries from rural areas are receiving child

support grant as compared to those in the semi-urban areas. This is because most

beneficiaries from rural areas are unemployed. It has become clear in this study that

beneficiaries from rural areas are the recipient of child support grant and are using

the money of child support grant correctly.

Most of the respondents are using child support grant correctly, hence they indicated

that they are able to use the money for child support grant to pay burial society,

transport and crèche and also because they buy food and clothes for their children.

The fact that beneficiaries are able to buy food and clothes for their children that they

are willing to use the money correctly, though few are unable to use the money

correctly, which contradicted the intension of child support grant usages.

The study revealed that the usages of child support grant by the beneficiaries is

good because it has been noted that they are able to buy food and clothes, and are

willing to pay electricity, transport and burial societies. This conduct causes by the

fact the child support grant are receives by people in need.

To conclude, beneficiaries as recipients of child support grants are satisfied with how

the child support grant money is used.

5.1.2 Data from community members

It has become clear in this study that community members have observed that child

support grant beneficiaries are abusing child support grant because they are able to

gamble and playing cards, and they also able to buy tobacco, drugs and alcohol with

65
that money. This is an indication that beneficiaries are abusing and misusing child

support grant, instead of using it correctly.

Community members believe that child support grant encourages teenage

pregnancy. This is because most beneficiaries who receive child support grant are

still attending school and are unemployed and living in rural areas. The findings

revealed that beneficiaries uses child support grant in different ways, such as buying

food, clothes, electricity, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, gambling, playing cards as well as

paying crèche and burial society.

The findings further revealed that most beneficiaries of child support grant receive by

people in needs, this is proven by the South African Social Security Agency

requirements when an application is done at offices. Most of beneficiaries are

unmarried, unemployed and are possessing South African identity number.

The finding also revealed that a beneficiary uses child support grant differently

because community members indicated that they use for food, clothes. Alcohol,

playing cards and gambling, whereas the child support grant money was intended to

be used for children’s welfare only, because if South African Social Security Agency

could establish that beneficiaries are abusing that money it will be stopped

immediately and look for suitable primary care giver.

Most of the respondents are not satisfied with how the beneficiaries of child support

grants are using the money, which according to them child support grant is poverty

alleviation to the masses of South African, and they are suggesting that voucher

system should replace money to avoid the misuse and abuse of child support grant It

can be concluded, therefore, that beneficiaries are misusing and abusing the child

support grant and it must be replaced by using voucher system.

66
5.1.3. Data from South African Social Security Agency employees

The study revealed that beneficiaries uses child support grant money differently. This

is supported by the fact that employees indicated that they are satisfied with how

beneficiaries are using child support grant money for their children. The findings

further revealed that the responsibility of ensuring that the child support grant money

is uses for children lies with the beneficiaries, it can be concluded that the South

African Social Security Agency’s duty revolves on policy formation and ensuring its

implementation. It has been indicated that the use child support grant money lies

with South African Social Security Agency ensuring constant monitoring.

SASSA employees are satisfied with how beneficiaries are using child support grant

money because they indicated that they buy clothes and food for their children. This

is also indication that child support grant are receives by people in need. It has

become clear that people are applying child support grant are between 14-20 years

old, it is believed that age is the confirmation that child support grant encourages

teenage pregnancy.

Most of the respondents agree that child support grant beneficiaries are vulnerable

to receive assistance while also agree that they is loopholes in granting. It can be

concluded that because there is need that child support grant is bringing changes to

the children of South Africa. South African Social Security Agency should consider

the introduction of voucher system to minimise the usage and abuse of child support

grant.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

67
Following the above conclusions, the following recommendation s were made.

Based on the findings that were revealed during the data collection stage, the

researcher makes recommendations to improve community perception on child

support grant.

5.2.1 Usage of money by beneficiaries

The study has revealed that most beneficiaries are using child support grant for its

intended plan whereas few beneficiaries do dot for the intended plan. It is therefore

recommended that beneficiaries who do not use child support grant be encourage to

use child support grant for its intended plan like others so that child support grant

misuse and abuse is minimises. It can be concluded that all stakeholders should

intensify the monitoring usage of child support grant by beneficiaries and if found

misuse, it should be reported to South African Social Security Agency office through

toll free no.0800601011 either entering SASSA office.

5.2.2 Person in need

It is important that South African Social Security Agency customer care unit should

starts embark on beneficiaries education through national and community radio

stations, imbizos and integrated community registration outreach

programme(ICROP), to highlight people that child support grant meant for people in

need. The study revealed that most beneficiaries who receive child support grant are

really in need. It is therefore recommended that South African Social Security

68
Agency officials should encourage beneficiaries more often and that they must

revisits South African Social Security Agency offices for child support grant

application if there is really need to do apply social grants.

5.2.3 Encourages pregnancy

The study further revealed that child support grant encourages teenage pregnancy.

This is supported by most respondents who testified that because of the increase of

amount every year, beneficiaries felt significant to bear or add children so that they

could receive substantive amount of money.

It is therefore recommended that South African Social Security Agency customer

care unit should intensify beneficiary’s awareness regarding child support grant, so

that beneficiaries should be aware that child support grant is a short term poverty

relief to the need and vulnerable families.

5.2.4 Observation by community members

Community members have observed that beneficiaries need child support grant.

This is supported by most community members who testified that because

beneficiary’s lives amongst the community and some of them are sisters or related to

one another. The study find it very significant that beneficiaries should continue

receiving but South African Social Security Agency should introduce the workable

monitoring system that will safe South African Social Security Agency’s money and

at the same will benefit the children.

5.2.5 Suggestion by community members

69
The findings revealed that South African Social Security Agency should introduce

voucher system, child support grant be equal across the board, South African Social

Security Agency should create job so that beneficiaries should work for, child support

grant be receive by their grannies. Amongst the suggestion made, most respondents

are in favour of voucher system, therefore, it can be concluded that SASSA should

consider introducing the voucher system to minimise the misuse and the abuse of

child support grant monies.

5.2.6 Loopholes

The study revealed that because most beneficiaries qualify child support grant as per

South African Social Security Agency policy requirements for child support grant

application. The respondents has responded differently such as that South African

Social Security Agency should introduce monitoring system and revisits policies,

whereas other indicated that South African Social Security Agency should consider

the maximum number of two child per biological parent, primary care giver be 18

years and above and pay single amount to primary care giver not an amount per

child.

SASSA as custodian of social grants, it can be concluded that South African Social

Security Agency has responsibility to ensure that the South African tax are safe

guarded by improving its policies when child support grant application is made.

5.2.7 Thought about Child Support Grant

Different thought were made that South African Social Security Agency should

educate beneficiaries on how to use the child support money. And other thought

70
made was that South African Social Security Agency should on continuous basis

review the child support grant to check the legibility of child support grant recipients.

Further thought made was that child support grant should receive by people over

twenty five years either be given to primary care giver. It is evident from the study

that there is a challenges regarding the usage of child support grant money, it is

therefore, concludes that the usage of child support grant be reviewed so that initial

intension be realised.

5.3 CONCLUSION

The present research investigated community perception on child support grant in

Lepelle Nkumpi Local Municipality. The study has revealed that overall community

members and South African Social Security Agency employees agreed that child

support grant is misusing and abusing. However, South African Social Security

Agency need to improve or revisits their policies for child support grant applications

such as introducing voucher systems. At this stage some beneficiaries uses child

support grant money for the benefit of their children.

71
REFERENCES

Biyase, M.E. 2005. A simple analysis of the impact of child support grant on the
fertility rate in South Africa. Paper delivered at the Economic Society of South Africa
Conference 2005.

Black, P.A. 2004. Poverty at the Household level: a review of theory and South
African Evidence. South African Journal of Economic, 72 (3): 413-435.

Brynard, P. 1997. Introduction to research in public administration and related

academic disciplines. Pretoria: Van Schaik Academic.

Brynard, P. 2006. The implementation of Child Support Grant Policy. Journal of

Public Administration, 41 (4.1): 836-849.

Brynard, P.A. and Hanekom, S.X. 1997. Introduction to Research in Public

Administration and Related Academic Disciplines. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Cloete, F. and Wissink, H. 2000. Improving Public Policy. Pretoria: Van Schaik
Publishers.

72
Coetzee, E. and Streak, J. 2004. Monitoring Child Socio- Economic Rights in South
Africa: Achievements and Challenges. Cape Town: IDASA.

Constitutional Court of South Africa. 2000. Government of the Republic of South

Africa and others v Grootboom and others. 2001(5) SA 721, 2000(10) BCLR 1033
(cc).

Department of Social Development, 2003. Children’s Bill. Pretoria: Government

Printer.

Du Toit, D. and Van der Waldt, G. 1997, Public Administration and Management:
The grassroots, Kenwyn: Juta.

Duflo, E. 2000. “Grandmothers and Granddaughters: Old Age Pension and Intra-
household Allocation in South Africa.” National Bureau of Economic Research
Working Paper No. 8061. http://economics.mit.edu/files/732. Accessed 18 July 2015.

Fox, W. and Meyer, I.H. 1996. Public Administration Dictionary. Juta & Co Ltd: Cape
Town.

Goldblatt, B., Rosa, S. and Hall, K. 2006. Implementation of the child support grant:
A study of four provinces and recommendation for improved service delivery. Cape
Town: Children’s Institute: University of Cape Town.

Jones, L.F. and Olson, E.C. 1996. Political Science Research: A handbook of Scope
and Methods. Longman: New York.

Kaseke, E. 2007. Social Security in the Informal Economy in Southern Africa. A

Paper Presented at a Conference on Innovative Approaches to Social Security In
India, Brazil and South African. University of Johannesburg. Johannesburg.

73
Kola, Braehmer, Kanyane, Morale & Kimmie. 2000. Phasing in the child support
grant: A Social Impact Study. Community Agency for Social Enquiry: Johannesburg

Makiwane, M. and Udjo, E. 2006. Is the child support grant associated with an
increase in teenage fertility in South Africa? Evidence from national treasury and
administrative data. Human Sciences Research Council: Pretoria.

Mouton, J. 1996. Understanding Social Research. Van Schaik: South Africa

Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in your masters and doctoral theory, A South
African quide and resources book. Van Schaik: Pretoria.

National Treasury. 2003. Estimates of National Expenditure. Pretoria: Government

Printer.

Neuman, W.L. 2006. Social Research Methods, Boston: Perason Education.

Olivier, M .P. 2003. The Concept of Social Security. In Olivier, M.P. Smit, N. and
Kalula, E.R. (eds) Social Security. A Legal Analysis. Durban: Lexis Nexis:
Butterworths.

Olivier, M.P. and Kalula, E. R. 2003. Scope of Coverage. In Olivier, M .P, Smit, N.
and Kalula, E. R. (eds) Social Security: A legal Analysis. Durban: Lexis Nexis.
Butterworths.

Posel, D. Fairburn, J. and Lund, F. 2004. Labour migration and households: A

reconsideration of the effects of the social pension on labour supply in South Africa:
Paper presented at the conference,” 75 years of Development Research” Cornell
University. 13-14 May 2004. Lord Charles Hotel, Somerset, South Africa.

74
Samson, M., U. Lee, A. Ndlebe, K. MacQuene, I. van Niekerk, V. Constitutional
Court of South Africa. 2000, Government of the Republic of South Africa and others
v Grootboom and others. 2001(5) SA 721, 2000(10) BCLR 1033 (CC).

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Pretoria: Government

Printers.

UNICEF. 2005. Childhood under threat::The state of the world’s Children

2005.http//www.unicef.org/sonco5/English/fullreport.htms. Accessed 31 May 2006.

Vonk, G. 2002. Migration, Social Security and the law: Some European Dilemmas.
European Journal Security, ¾: 315–332.

QUESTIONAIRE FOR BENEFICIARIES OF CSG

1. Biographical data.

1.1. Your gender? M F

1.2. Your race B I C W

1.3. Your age? 15-17 18-21 22- 26+

25

75
 1.4. Occupation Gov. Self SASSA

Off Empl Employees

1.5. Marital status Divorce Widow Unmarried

1.6. Educational level Primary High School Tertiary

School

1.7 Where do you reside/live

Rural

76
 Township

Town

18 .What kind of house do you live in?

RDP house

Shark

Brick house

77
 Traditional dwelling

19 How long have you been receiving?

Less than 1 year

2 years

3. Years

4 years and above

1. How many children do you have who receive social grant?

………………………………………………………………………………..

78
2. How much do you receive?

……………………………………………………………………………….

3. How do you use the money?

…………………………………………………………………………………

4. Are the money sufficient to cater the needs for the child/children?

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

5. What other thing do you use with this money?

Gambling personal Help other Family

8. What do you buy? Clothes Groceries Social clubs

9. Are you of the opinion that GSG is received by person in need? Yes No

(a) If yes, give reason

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………….

79
(b) If no, give reasons

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

QUESTIONAIRE FOR EMPLOYEES ON CSG

1. Where are you stationed?

2. How long have you been employed by SASSA?

3. What is your current job level?

4. What are your responsibilities in your current position?

5. What are the requirements to receive the CSG?

6. According to your observation, are the CSG applicants vulnerable to receive

assistance? Yes or No

80
 (a) If yes ,gives reasons

(b) If no, give reasons

7. Between which ages girls/woman are coming to SASSA office for CSG

application?

Between 14-20 years old

Between 20-25 years old

25 years and above

8. What should SASSA do to close the loop holes in its GSG requirements?
9. Are there any follow up when the CSG has received/approved?
Yes or No

(a) If yes, give the reasons

(b) If no, give reasons

10. Does child support grant receive by people who are really in need?
Yes or No

81
 (a)If yes, give the reasons

(b)If no, give reasons

11. Give your thought about GSG recipients

QUESTIONAIRE FOR COMMUNIITY ON CSG PERCEPTIONS

1. Are you of the opinion that CSG is received by person in need? Yes or No
(a). If yes, give the reasons
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………..…………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
(b). If no, give the reasons
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………..…………………………………………………

2. Do you think child support grant encourages pregnancy? Yes or No

(a). If yes, give the reasons

82
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………..……………………………………………….

3. What do you think CSG beneficiaries normally use their money for?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Give any observation regarding the alleges abuse of CSG

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. How long have you been observing?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Where did you observe specifically?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..

7. What do you think/ suggest the SASSA should do to correct the situation?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….......

83