Government-funded programmes and services for vulnerable - Unicef

Department of Human Settlement
for the relevant services for their children (Coetzee & Streak 2004). The TAC decision
is, however, not unequivocal. It was made in the context of access to healthcare, rather
than housing or socio-economic rights generally, and until we see a Constitutional Court
decision directly on the matter at hand, or new legislation which takes the matter forward,
the ambit of the duty to provide poor children with housing remains ambiguous.
Increasing housing shortfall
The housing shortfall continues to grow with population growth, urbanisation and
demographic change, resulting in a growing contravention of the rights of vulnerable
children and their families to adequate housing and shelter.
The quality of housing that children live in falls into one of three categories (Hall 2005): 102
● informal housing – informal dwellings/shacks in backyards/informal settlements;
● traditional housing – traditional structures made of traditional materials;
● formal dwellings – adequate housing or dwellings/brick structures on separate
stands, flats/apartments, etc.
The number of children in informal housing increased by 300 000 between 2002 and 2008.
In addition, there was no improvement in the distribution of children between informal,
formal and traditional housing in the same time period (Hall 2009b). This is partly
explained by the fact that there has been a dramatic downturn in the pace of delivery of
houses to vulnerable people. Hall (2009b) attributes this to a response to the poor quality
of houses that were delivered in bulk in the initial stages of the housing programmes.
The most recent departmental Annual Report (Department of Housing 2009) alludes to
staff shortages and funding shortages preventing the realisation of its mandate. Hall (2005)
observes that the subsidy scheme is underfunded and the budgets that are allocated are
underspent.
Children in formal housing are more likely to have access to services on site (and thus
access to their other socio-economic rights, such as water and sanitation) than those in
informal housing. They are also more likely to be close to schools, clinics and libraries.
The current housing policies are failing the most vulnerable. Statistics reveal that the
most vulnerable children are the most likely and the most at risk of living in inadequate
housing, be it either informal or traditional housing. In addition, there is a racial bias to
access to adequate/formal housing. As noted, while 98 per cent of white children live in
formal housing, only 66 per cent of African children do (Hall 2009b: 98).
Housing laws
The Housing Act specifically targets marginalised women as intended beneficiaries. Section
2(1)(x) provides that, ‘National, provincial and local spheres of government must…
promote…the housing needs of marginalised women and other groups disadvantaged by
unfair discrimination.’
Despite identifying marginalised women as a particular target group, prioritising single
parents (i.e. mostly single mothers) and aiming to reach equal numbers of men and
women, the subsidy scheme does not contain explicit mechanisms to ensure that women
and single parents are prioritised.
102 Defined in the General Household Survey 2002–2007
203