Targeting AIDS orphans and child-headed households? A perspective from national surveys in South Africa, 1995–2005

Figures & data

Table 1. Surveys used, source and sample size.

Year	Survey	Source	Sample size	Notation
1995	October Household Survey	Statistics South Africa	30,000 Households	OHS1995
1997	October Household Survey	Statistics South Africa	30,000 Households	OHS1997
1999	October Household Survey	Statistics South Africa	30,000 Households	OHS1999
2002	General Household Survey	Statistics South Africa	30,000 Households	GHS 2002
2005	General Household Survey	Statistics South Africa	32,000 Households	GHS 2005

Table 2. Reported status of children's biological parents.

	October Household Survey 1995 (%)	October Household Survey 1997 (%)	General Household Survey 2002 (%)	General Household Survey 2005 (%)
Both alive	85.09	87.82	84.57	82.5
Mother dead Father alive	1.49	1.49	2.88	3.01
Father dead Mother alive	11.84	9.58	10.81	11.37
Both dead	1.59	1.12	1.75	3.12
Total	100	100	100	100
Notes: 1. The OHS 1999 was excluded from this analysis because it only asks about the mother's status and in a different section of the questionnaire from the other surveys.
2. A conservative approach to orphaning was adopted, in that parents whose status was reported as unknown are included in the alive category. The numbers involved, however, are very small, particularly in the later surveys.
Source: Own calculations based on Stats SA data.

Table 3. Percentage of children living in different household types (1995–2005).

	October Household Survey 1995 (%)	October Household Survey 1997 (%)	October Household Survey 1999 (%)	General Household Survey 2002 (%)	General Household Survey 2003 (%)
No child in household	–	–	–	–	–
No adult – only children	0.11	0.34	0.45	0.67	0.66
Skip-generation	1.69	2.44	2.23	2.3	2.29
Young adult (18–25) with children	1.22	1.86	1.71	1.88	2.27
Single adult with children	7.31	9.28	9.39	9.71	11.27
Other	89.68	86.09	86.22	85.44	83.52
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Note: Source: Own calculations based on Stats SA data.

Table 4. Percentage of children living in different household types by reported status of biological parents (2005 General Household Survey).

	Both alive (%)	Mother dead father alive (%)	Father dead mother alive (%)	Both dead (%)
Significance		*	*	*
No adult – only children	0.6	0.9	0.9	2
Skip-generation	1.9	6.4	3	6.8
Young adult (18–25) with children	1.9	4.4	2.8	7
Single adult with children	10	10	19	9.7
‘Other’	85.6	78.3	74.3	74.5
Total	100	100	100	100
Notes: 1. Significance of difference in distribution across household types relative to category ‘both alive’; *denotes significant at 5% level.
Source: Own calculations based on Stats SA data.

Table 5. Household size and number of children by household type (2005 General Household Survey).

People n	No adult – only children	Skip-generation	Young adult with children	Single adult with children	Other
Number of people (%)
Sig.	*	*	*	*
1	54	–	–	–	–
2	28	29	35	31	–
3	9	35	29	32	16
4	7	22	15	18	24
5 +	2	14	21	19	60
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Number of children (%)
Sig.	*	*	*	NS
1	54	43	54	31	30
2	28	30	23	32	31
3	9	16	9	18	18
4	7	5	10	12	11
5 +	2	6	4	7	9
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Notes: Significance of distribution relative to category ‘other’ households, *denotes 5% significance, NS = not significant.
Source: Own calculations based on Stats SA data.

Table 6. Estimated per capita expenditure in Rands, percentage distribution by household structure (2005 General Household Survey).

Monthly expenditure	No adult – only children (%)	Skip-generation (%)	Young adult with children (%)	Single adult with children (%)	‘Other’ (%)
Sig.	*	*	*	*
R0–199	24	39	57	48	48
R200–299	41	22	15	14	15
R300–499	10	25	16	14	10
R500–999	19	9	10	12	19
R1000 +	6	5	2	12	8
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Notes: Significance of distribution relative to category ‘other’ households, *denotes 5% significance.
R7 = ±US$ 1, January 2007.
Per capita estimates ignore the differences in consumption associated with children relative to adults and ignore economies of scale. Adjustments were made for both of these factors, but the pattern across households remained unchanged. Using the mid-point of expenditure estimates can be problematic as it causes households to clump together. Distribution within the category can be very important when combined with household size; for this reason the lowest category was made large to avoid distortions associated with the combination. The survey also asks for estimated expenditure across a number of items. Combined, these provide an estimate of total expenditure not in pre-defined categories. These estimates were also used, but again did not affect the general pattern between households a great deal.
Source: Own calculations based on Stats SA data.

Table 7. Reported child hunger percentage distribution by household type (2005 General Household Survey).

Reports of hunger in last 12 months	No adult – only children (%)	Skip-generation (%)	Young adult with children (%)	Single adult with children (%)	‘Other’ (%)
Sig.	*	*	*	*
Never	74	81	67	69	77
Seldom	3	6	4	6	5
Sometimes	14	10	23	19	13
Often	2	0.9	4	3	3
Always	3	1	2	2	2
Unspecified	4	1.1	–	1	–
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Notes: Significance of distribution relative to category ‘other’ households, *denotes 5% significance.
2. Respondents may have been embarrassed to say that children went hungry resulting in under-reporting. This would be a particular problem if certain respondents were more likely to be embarrassed than others. It may be the case that child-only and young adult households were less embarrassed to say that they were hungry.
Source: Own calculations based on Stats SA data.

Table 8. Main source of income percentage distribution by household type (2005 General Household Survey).

Income source	No adult – only children (%)	Skip-generation (%)	Young adult with children (%)	Single adult with children (%)	‘Other’ (%)
Sig.	*	*	*	*
Salaries/wages	10	4	29	37	58
Remittances	73	5	55	27	8
Pensions/grants	6	87	12	25	27
Sales of farm products	0	0	0	1	1
Other non-farm income	2	4	1	5	5
No-income	8	0	2	3	1
Unspecified	1	–	1	2	–
Total	100	100	100	100	100
Notes: Significance of distribution relative to category ‘other’ households, *denotes 5% significance.
Source: Own calculations based on Stats SA data.