TARGETING FAMILIES AFFECTED BY HIV AND AIDS 53
tive of the two communities, but they do suggest that the OAP is an effective means of reaching AIDS-affected households. Because it is likely that most of these households would be CSG eligible, these communities appear to suffer from the same uptake problems as found elsewhere (Booysen 2004a). The South African grants that could arguably be most directly suited for AIDS-affected households are the Disability Grant and the FCG, although they were not intended for this. The Disability Grant can be obtained by adults who are HIV positive when their CD4 count falls below 200. The take-up rate was about 36 percent in 2000, but although higher take-up would both reduce poverty (Samson et al. 2004) and help families with a very ill member, its potential reach for AIDS-affected families is very limited. The FCG is a means- tested grant for children determined to be “in need of care” (Meintjes et al. 2003) regardless of whether their biological parents are alive (devised as part of the child protection system), but orphans fall into this eligibility category. This grant provides a much higher payment (about three times higher) than the CSG and is much more complicated to obtain and monitor, involving court orders and referrals to social workers. It has increasingly been used to sup- port families fostering children orphaned through AIDS, although take-up by eligible households is far more limited than that of the CSG. Among house- holds that have accessed the grant, it appears to be well targeted toward AIDS-affected families. Schubert et al. (2007) estimate that among FCG recipi- ents, about 50 percent are AIDS affected. The FCG has been given consider- able attention in social assistance policy with respect to children affected by HIV/AIDS. The national Minister of Social Development, in a 2002 address to the national Department of Education’s HIV/AIDS conference, states that the Department of Social Development (DSD) was encouraging relatives to care for orphaned children under the FCG and reaffirmed this in a 2004 document, stating that a DSD priority was the increased registration of orphans for the FCG (South Africa, Department of Social Development 2004). The larger grant provides much better support for households, and many
have advocated for an aggressive expansion in response to the orphan crisis. A strong case has also been made, however, as to why it is an inappropriate response (Meintjes et al. 2003). Aside from issues of prohibitive application burdens on beneficiaries (indicated by the low take-up) as well as administra- tors and social workers (much greater than those of the CSG), it is argued that the FCG is fundamentally inequitable. The concern is that many children liv- ing with biological parents are just as impoverished and at risk, especially because many are living with ill parents, as children living with other rela- tives and that there is no basis for giving the latter a grant that is so much larger (the FCG) than the grant given to the former (the CSG). The funds could instead go to increasing the CSG or expanding it to children up to age
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237