Gender, Social Protection and
Child Well Being: a Gendered
Analysis of the Child Support
Grant in Doornkop, Soweto
Leila Patel
Tessa Hochfeld
Centre for Social Development in Africa
Doornkop, Soweto
Profile of CSG households
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
83% of households received a CSG
Average of 2.1 CSGs per household
92% of CSG respondents were women; 8% were men
More than half were married or had a partner (54%)
52% female headed households; 38% male headed
CSG respondents younger women between 21 – 40
years old (34%)
Cared for young children: 44% of children under 5 years
90% of CSG households earned R2,500 or less / month
Few (14%) employed, 23% casual work, 23% own
businesses
Other grants; multiple sources of income; CSG
regular income
Women’s power in the household:
Financial decision making
2.3
1.2
I make the decisions about how
money is spent
My partner or spouse makes the
decisions about how money is
spent
31.1
48.3
My mother or father makes the
decisions about how money is
spent
We both or all in the household
have a say in how the money is
spent
Someone else in the household
makes the decisions about how
money is spent
Other
7.3
9
Women’s power in the household
• Use of grant
• 74% always or sometimes use it for food
• 65% often or sometimes used it for school costs
• Decision-making on children
• Women are the main decision makers about
children’s health, education and discipline
• Views
• “The grant makes my life better” (82%)
• “The grant gives me power and courage” (66%)
Use of the CSG
Pay for food
51%
Pay for school fees or uniforms
12%
38%
Pay for transport
20%
Pay for medicine or health services
9%
Pay for household or family events
7%
10%
7%
3%
11%
11%
16%
13%
27%
6%
Always
Save money / put money aside for future use
6%
5%
Often
6%
Sometimes
Pay for a child minder to look after your child
4%
Pay off debts
4%
Pay for business costs
2%
Buy airtime
2%
0%
2%
15%
4%
12%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percentage
50%
60%
70%
80%
Gender and care
• 85% of CSG respondents spend most of their time on
care and domestic responsibilities
• Care activities include : help with homework (66%);
accompany children to school (36%); playing with or
reading to children (59%)
• 13% cared for other non-CSG children
• 61% of fathers who are not current partners of women
never pay maintenance
• 31% said: “Now that I get the grant fathers no longer
provide support”
• High access to electricity, running water & flush toilets
Child well-being
• Food security
• 80% said they were severely or moderately food insecure
• Health status
• 97% children immunized; 92% children in good health
• Education
• 100% attending school regularly; 70% not failed a grade
• Family cohesion
•
•
•
•
All (100%) children live with relatives – cared for in family system
82% lived with 1 or both biological parents
63% said “the grant helps keep my family together”
93% of grants received by caregivers are for children who actually
live in the household
Conclusions
• CSG enhances women’s power and control over
household decision-making in financial matters, general
household spending, and in relation to child well-being
• Women continue to bear the greatest responsibility for
care of children
• Social protection outcomes should improve child wellbeing AND the status and position of women
• Social protection cannot do this alone: must
work in concert with other public policies