The General Household Survey captures information on all household members, making it possible to look at the distribution of children in urban and non-urban households and compare this to the adult distribution. Nearly half of South Africa’s children (47%) lived in rural households in 2010 – equivalent to almost nine million children. Looking back over nearly a decade, there seems to be a slight shift towards urban areas: in 2002 46% of children were found in urban households, increasing to 53% in 2010. However, this possible trend can only be confirmed when the results of the 2011 Census become available, particularly as type of area is determined by the sample design. All we can say for now is that slightly more children were found to be in sampled urban households in 2010 than in 2002.

What remains consistent over the years is that children are more likely to live in rural areas than are adults: 65% of the adult population is urban, compared with only 53% of children. 
 

There are marked provincial differences in the rural and urban distribution of the child population. This is related to the distribution of cities in South Africa, and the creation of ‘homelands’ under the apartheid state, which were populated mainly by women, children and older people. The Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal and Limpopo provinces alone are home to about three-quarters (74%) of all rural children in South Africa. KwaZulu-Natal has the largest child population in numeric terms, with 2.7 children (63% of its child population being classified as rural. The province with the highest proportion of rural children is Limpopo, where only 10% of children live in urban areas. Children living in the Western Cape and Gauteng are almost entirely urban-based (94% and 95% respectively). These provinces have historically had large urban populations. The greatest provincial increase in the urban child population has been in the Free State, where the proportion of children living in urban areas increase from 67% of the child population in 2002 to 85% in 2010. In the Eastern Cape, the urban child population has increase by nearly 10 percentage points, signifying a possible urban trend there.

Rural areas, and particularly the former homelands, are known to have much poorer populations.¹ Children in the poorest 20% of households are more likey to be living in rural areas (67%) than those in the richest 20% of households (16%). These inequalities also remain strongly racialised. Over 90% of white, coloured and Asian children are urban, compared with 46% of black children.
 

The data are derived from the General Household Survey, an annual survey conducted by the national statistics body, Statistics South Africa.² The sample is based on the enumeration areas established during the Census demarcation phase and therefore covers all parts of the country. The sample of 30,000 dwelling units ensures a representative sample when stratifying by province. The resulting estimates should be representative of the total population of South Africa. Person and household weights are provided by Statistics South Africa and are applied in Children Count – Abantwana Babalulekile analyses to give representative estimates at the provincial and national levels.

 

When comparing the weighted 2004 data with the ASSA2003 Aids and Demographic model estimates, it seems that the number of children aged 7 – 12 years was over-estimated by 6%. The number of very young children appeared to have been under-estimated. The patterns of over- and under-estimation appear to differ across population groups. For example, the number of White children appears to be over-estimated by 14%, while the number of Coloured persons within the 13 – 22-year age group appears to be 9% too low.

 

The GHS sample consists of households and does not cover other collective institutionalised living-quarters such as boarding schools, orphanages, students’ hostels, old-age homes, hospitals, prisons, military barracks and workers’ hostels. These exclusions should not have a noticeable impact on the findings in respect of children.

 

A new master sample was used for the first time in 2004, meaning that for longitudinal analysis 2002 and 2003 may not be easily comparable with later years as they are based on a different sample frame.

 

Provincial boundary changes occurred since 2002, and may slightly affect the provincial populations. Comparisons on provincial level should therefore be treated with some caution. The sample and reporting are based on the old provincial boundaries as defined in 2001.

 

Statistics South Africa suggests caution when attempting to interpret data generated at low level disaggregation. The population estimates are benchmarked at the national level in terms of age, sex and population group while at provincial level, benchmarking is by population group only. This could mean that estimates derived from any further disaggregation of the provincial data below the population group may not be robust enough.