The reach and impact of Child Support Grants: evidence from KwaZulu-Natal

Figures & data

Table 1: Mean characteristics of children below age 7 in the DSA^a

	Children for whom a Child Support Grant is not reported	Children for whom a Child Support Grant is reported
Age	3.08	3.18*
Proportion female	0.50	0.50
Mother's age	29.3 [n = 6856]	31.0* [n = 4356]
Mother is less than 20 years old	0.087	.037*
Mother was less than age 20 at the child's birth	0.17	0.12*
Father's age	38.3 [n = 3058]	41.4* [n = 1942]
Mother and child are both resident members of the same bounded structure^b	0.67	0.82*
Mother is a non-resident member of child's bounded structure	0.14	0.10*
Mother is dead	0.04	0.02*
Mother is neither a resident nor non-resident member, nor is mother known to be dead	0.16	0.06*
Father and child are both resident members of the same bounded structure	0.20	0.24*
Father is a non-resident member of child's bounded structure	0.16	0.16
Father is dead	0.04	0.07*
Father is neither a resident nor a non-resident member, nor is father known to be dead	0.60	0.52*
Mother, father and child are all resident members of the same bounded structure	0.16	0.22*
Number of assets owned by household	7.85 [n = 7400]	7.59* [n = 4352]
Number of observations^c	8181	4684
^aSample is restricted to those children resident in the DSA on 1 January 2002 for whom a household identifier is known. See Appendix for details. Asterisks (*) denote that the difference in means between the two samples is significant at the 1 per cent level.
^bA bounded structure is a physical area (compound, house) that has a single owner.
^cNumbers of observations are given at the bottom of each column, with the exception of mother's and father's ages, and number of assets owned by the child's household – variables for which there are missing values. Numbers of observations in these cases are given in square brackets.

Table 2: Household assets and the probability of reporting a Child Support Grant.^a Dependent variable:=1 if informant reports contact with the Child Support Grant system on behalf of this child

Explanatory variables: [sample means in brackets]
Indicator: household owns a refrigerator [.455]	.007 (.014)
Indicator: household owns a hot water heater (geyser) [.014]	−.202** (.042)
Indicator: household owns a washing machine [.004]	−.091 (.089)
Indicator: household owns a television [.362]	−.005 (.014)
Indicator: household owns a VCR [.063]	−.150** (.022)
Indicator: household owns a computer [.005]	−.141 (.078)
Indicator: household owns a car [.125]	−.039** (.019)
Chi-square test for the joint significance of these assets (p-value)	80.59 (.0000)
Number of observations	11734
^aProbit estimates. The numbers reported are changes in the probability of reporting a grant, given a change from 0 to 1 in the right side variable presented. Robust standard errors for these changes are reported in parentheses, where correlation is allowed between unobservables for children in the same household. The statistical significance of underlying probit coefficients are marked: **significant at a 5 per cent level; *significant at a 10 per cent level. Included in the probit are age and sex indicators, household size and number of non-resident members, and a complete set of indicator variables for parent's status. Sample is restricted to children resident in the DSA on 1 January 2002.

Table 3: Parental characteristics and the probability of a Child Support Grant.^a Dependent variable:=1 if informant reports contact with the Child Support Grant system on behalf of this child

Explanatory variables	Mothers	Fathers
Indicator: parent is separated, divorced or widowed	.049 (.040)	−.225** (.060)
Indicator: parent is not married	−.049** (.019)	−.057** (.023)
Indicator: parent's completed schooling is less than standard 6/grade 8	.057** (.018)	.136** (.028)
Indicator: parent's completed schooling is between standard 7 and 9 (grade 9 and 11)	.098** (.018)	.124** (.032)
Indicator: parent is employed part-time	.056 (.036)	.061 (.047)
Indicator: parent is not employed	.135** (.014)	.125** (.021)
Indicator: other parent is a non-resident household member	−.041** (.020)	−.125** (.039)
Indicator: other parent is dead	.128** (.034)	−.158** (.066)
Indicator: other parent is neither a resident nor non-resident household member, nor is he known to be dead	−.007 (.018)	−.176** (.027)
Number of observations	10403	4583
^aProbit estimates. Reported are changes in the probability of reporting a grant, given a change from 0 to 1 in the right side variable presented. Robust standard errors for these changes are reported in parentheses, where correlation is allowed between unobservables for children in the same household. The statistical significance of the underlying probit coefficients are marked: **significant at a 5 per cent level; *significant at a 10 per cent level. The reference category for parent's education is completion of standard 10 (grade 12) or higher. The reference category for parent's employment is ‘employed full-time’. The reference category in columns 2 and 3 for other parent's status is ‘resident in household’. Sample in column 1 is restricted to children resident in the DSA on 1 January 2002 whose mothers are known to have been alive on 1 January 2002, and in column 2 to children resident in the DSA on 1 January 2002 whose fathers are known to have been alive on 1 January 2002. Included in the probit are age and sex indicators, household size and number of non-resident members, a complete set of indicator variables for parent's age and a complete set of indicator variables for parent's status. Included in father's regression is an indicator that he is polygamous (coefficient insignificant). Where mother's marital status, or education or employment status, is unknown, it is assigned as the mean marital status, education, or employment status for all mothers, and variables are included indicating that mother's marital status, education, or employment status has been assigned.

Table 4: Child Support Grant receipt and school enrolment^a

Impact of Child Support Grant receipt on the probability of enrolment, estimated from a probit regression run separately for children of each age			Impact of future Child Support Grant receipt by a younger sibling on the enrolment of children in year 2000, estim ated from a probit regression run separately for children of each age
Age [mean enrolment]	Coefficient	Number of observations	Age [mean enrolment]	Coefficient	Number of observations
School Enrolment 2003/04			School Enrolment 2000
Age 6	.081**	987	Age 6	−.003	1060
[0.845]	(0.023)		[0.951]	(.014)
Age 7	.018**	1442	Age 7	−.027**	1223
[0.954]	(.009)		[0.953]	(.015)
Age 8	.006	1434	Age 8	−.021*	1191
[0.976]	(.007)		[0.954]	(.014)
Age 9	−.015	1396	Age 9	−.015	1293
[0.979]	(.019)		[0.956]	(.013)
^aProbit estimates. Reported are changes in the probability of school enrolment, given child support grant receipt (left-hand panel) or given future grant receipt to a sibling (right-hand panel). Robust standard errors for these changes are reported in parentheses, where correlation is allowed between the unobservables for children who are members of the same household. The statistical significance of the underlying probit coefficients are marked: **significant at a 5 per cent level; *significant at a 10 per cent level. Included in all regressions are an indicator of the child's sex, mother's completed education, and mother's age on 1 January 2002. When mother's education or age is missing, the relevant variable is assigned a value of zero, and indicator variables are included that her education or age is missing. For the school enrolment probits in the left-hand panel, socio-economic status variables for 2003–04 (measured at the time school enrolment information was collected) are included. These are indicator variables that the child's household has piped water, access to toilet facilities, connection to the electricity grid, and a variable measuring the number of assets the household owned at the time of the 2003–04 survey. In addition, indicators for mother's and father's status at the time of the 2003–04 survey are included. These are indicators signifying that mother is resident in the same bounded structure as the child; mother is dead; mother's status is unknown; father is resident; father is dead; and father's status is unknown. For the school enrolment probits in the right-hand panel, analogous socio-economic and parental status variables for 2001 are included. These were measured in the first half of 2001 at the time information on children's 2000 enrolment information was collected.

Figure 1: Child Support Grant status, by age, for resident children aged 0 to 5. Notes: For those children reported to have had contact with the Child Support Grant system, the graphs above present the stage to which the application process had advanced by 2002. Shown separately by age are: MFV: the fraction for whom only a first visit has been made (6.8% over all children < age 7); SUB: an application has been submitted (7.8%); AWD: an award has been made, but not yet received (3.6%); REC: the grant has been received (80.2%); REF: the application was refused (0.3%). Results for 6 year olds (not shown) look very similar to those for 5 year olds. Not shown are a small number of children for whom it is reported that the grant has been stopped

Figure 2: Receipt of a Child Support Grant for children aged 4, 5, or 6 in 2002

Figure 3: The probability of reporting a Child Support Grant, presented by the status of a child's mother and father. Notes: Reported are the probabilities of reporting a Child Support Grant, based on the vital status of a child's parents. The first four bars report grants for children whose mothers are resident in the same bounded structure with the child. Fathers are either resident (bar 1), non-resident (bar 2), dead (bar 3), or vital status unknown (bar 4)