In 2024, the #PayTheGrants campaign and the IEJ took the department of social development to court, challenging the SRD grant regulations. They asked the court to declare the questions about income unlawful and unconstitutional.
According to the IEJ report, 18-million people are eligible for the grant, however, only 8-million people have been approved since April 2022 when the new qualifying qualification criteria came into effect. At least 25% who were eligible did not believe they qualified, while others were misled by the application process given by the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa).
"But the application questionnaire has been criticised for potentially misleading applicants into stating that they have means when they don’t. Many eligible individuals in our sample who were not receiving grants gave answers to SassaASSA’s questions that contradicted their responses to our simpler questions on income and financial support," read the report.
Senior researcher at IEJ Kelle Howson said the grant does not instill faith because of the distorted process. "In our research we did have migrants in the pool mixed with South Africans, and we found that many of them who did not apply for the grant did not have faith that they were eligible or were even going to get it," said Howson.
The digitalised application process has increased potential risk as some beneficiaries do not have smartphones, have language and educational barriers, and those in rural areas were affected the most.
One of the criteria is that applicants must have financial support of less than R624 a month, however, the report said some people were disqualified because their monthly income was above the means-test threshold but they lived below the food poverty line. About 37% had monthly income above the food poverty line but below the upper bound poverty line.
"This means they likely would have been eligible for support had the eligibility threshold been adjusted to account for inflation. Despite being technically above the eligibility threshold, the majority demonstrated a significant need for support, reporting high levels of financial strain with many indicating that they struggle to afford basic necessities like food. The key finding of the report is that the grant is not accessible, especially to those who need it most " explained Howson.
The report also indicated that about 80% of all rejection decisions were based on alternative income source identified by Sassa which refers to cases where applicants have failed bank verification check. This meant banks sometimes register any inflows into an applicant’s account as “means”, including child maintenance, loans, once-off donations, household transfers and funds held on behalf of others.
Only 5.3% of people who appeal their reject applications were successful, with 98% of SRD appeals in 2023/24 being rejected, indicating that the process does not allow new evidence; it's just an automated recheck.
Some people like Samuel Ndlama, a 35-year-old from Zimbabwe on a refugee status in SA, said they have lost faith in the process.
Ndlama applied for the grant for not having a source of income, particularly during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. His hope for assistance was boosted after Scalabrini, an organisation advocating for migrants, won a court case that ensured asylum seekers and special permit holders could apply for the Covid-19 SRD grant.
“That meant a lot for my family because we didn't have anything and I was a breadwinner at home with a family of four that looked to me for food. I had to find a way because I'm a construction worker and I go where there is a job. And because of Covid-19, there was nothing, so I said this grant could assist me. I heard about it from a friend and I applied. Government officials said I was not eligible because I had an alternative source of income, which I did not have. I was confused,” said Ndlama.
He said he appealed the decision in 2023, but received the same answer and he eventually gave up.
IEJ recommended policy changes, regular and clear provisions of information, provide non-digital options and end bank surveillance. The organisation sampled more than just over 1,000 people, including those who received the grant and others who had applied from different provinces.
FACTBOX
- At least 23.3% of the people didn’t believe they qualified
- 17.5% didn’t know how to apply
- 14.6% didn’t have a device to apply on
- 11.7% believed their application would be declined despite believing they qualified
Nearly half of R370 SRD grant recipients not paid regularly
Report also points at flaws in application process
Nearly half of the Covid-19 grant beneficiaries who have been approved are not paid regularly.
This is according to a research by the Institute of Economic Justice (IEJ) released last month which also found that millions of people are excluded from the social relief of distress grant because of lack of knowledge, the flawed eligibility criteria and lack of access to smart phones.
The organisation sampled just over 1,000 people, including those who received the grant and others who had applied from different provinces.
Many of the ones that are eligible were also unaware of how to apply for the grant. About 44.5% of grant beneficiaries did not receive payment regularly due to banking and administrative issues.
The report , came as comment for the the proposed amendments to the qualify criteria were open to the public. The public comment process closed yesterday.
In January, high court judge Leonard Twala ruled that the regulations limiting access to the grant are unconstitutional and invalid. The court ordered the government to increase the grant amount and the income threshold to qualify for it.
In 2024, the #PayTheGrants campaign and the IEJ took the department of social development to court, challenging the SRD grant regulations. They asked the court to declare the questions about income unlawful and unconstitutional.
According to the IEJ report, 18-million people are eligible for the grant, however, only 8-million people have been approved since April 2022 when the new qualifying qualification criteria came into effect. At least 25% who were eligible did not believe they qualified, while others were misled by the application process given by the South African Social Security Agency (Sassa).
"But the application questionnaire has been criticised for potentially misleading applicants into stating that they have means when they don’t. Many eligible individuals in our sample who were not receiving grants gave answers to SassaASSA’s questions that contradicted their responses to our simpler questions on income and financial support," read the report.
Senior researcher at IEJ Kelle Howson said the grant does not instill faith because of the distorted process. "In our research we did have migrants in the pool mixed with South Africans, and we found that many of them who did not apply for the grant did not have faith that they were eligible or were even going to get it," said Howson.
The digitalised application process has increased potential risk as some beneficiaries do not have smartphones, have language and educational barriers, and those in rural areas were affected the most.
One of the criteria is that applicants must have financial support of less than R624 a month, however, the report said some people were disqualified because their monthly income was above the means-test threshold but they lived below the food poverty line. About 37% had monthly income above the food poverty line but below the upper bound poverty line.
"This means they likely would have been eligible for support had the eligibility threshold been adjusted to account for inflation. Despite being technically above the eligibility threshold, the majority demonstrated a significant need for support, reporting high levels of financial strain with many indicating that they struggle to afford basic necessities like food. The key finding of the report is that the grant is not accessible, especially to those who need it most " explained Howson.
The report also indicated that about 80% of all rejection decisions were based on alternative income source identified by Sassa which refers to cases where applicants have failed bank verification check. This meant banks sometimes register any inflows into an applicant’s account as “means”, including child maintenance, loans, once-off donations, household transfers and funds held on behalf of others.
Only 5.3% of people who appeal their reject applications were successful, with 98% of SRD appeals in 2023/24 being rejected, indicating that the process does not allow new evidence; it's just an automated recheck.
Some people like Samuel Ndlama, a 35-year-old from Zimbabwe on a refugee status in SA, said they have lost faith in the process.
Ndlama applied for the grant for not having a source of income, particularly during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. His hope for assistance was boosted after Scalabrini, an organisation advocating for migrants, won a court case that ensured asylum seekers and special permit holders could apply for the Covid-19 SRD grant.
“That meant a lot for my family because we didn't have anything and I was a breadwinner at home with a family of four that looked to me for food. I had to find a way because I'm a construction worker and I go where there is a job. And because of Covid-19, there was nothing, so I said this grant could assist me. I heard about it from a friend and I applied. Government officials said I was not eligible because I had an alternative source of income, which I did not have. I was confused,” said Ndlama.
He said he appealed the decision in 2023, but received the same answer and he eventually gave up.
IEJ recommended policy changes, regular and clear provisions of information, provide non-digital options and end bank surveillance. The organisation sampled more than just over 1,000 people, including those who received the grant and others who had applied from different provinces.
FACTBOX