National context
- Government’s budget for social development increased from R397 billion in 2024/25 to R422 billion in 2025/26, constituting 16% of consolidated government expenditure of R2.59 trillion. Of this, R117 billion was allocated to the old-age grant, R99 billion to social security funds and R90 billion to the child support grant. A total of R77 billion was allocated to other grants, provincial social development, and policy oversight and grant administration.
- The budget for community development is R286 billion for 2025/26, accounting for 11% of the consolidated government expenditure. Most of this is earmarked for local municipalities, public transport and human settlements.
- As of 31 March 2025, the total number of grant beneficiaries was just over 12 million, according to the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA). SASSA paid out 19 million grants to these beneficiaries, as many people receive more than one grant (e.g. a caregiver receiving multiple child support grants). Around 13 million child support grants (R560 per child per month) 4.1 million old-age grants (R2 310 per recipient per month) and 1 million disability grants (R2 310 per recipient per month) were paid out.
- Additionally, SASSA told Parliament that over 17 million people had applied for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant since its introduction during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. In March, Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana announced the extension of the SRD grant to 31 March 2026. The grant was increased in April 2024 from R350 to R370 a month. According to National Treasury, R35.2 billion was allocated to extend the SRD grant at R370 per beneficiary, including administration costs.
- The World Bank estimates that South Africa’s poverty rate has increased from 66% of the population living below the upper middle-income poverty line of US$8.30 per day in 2015 to 68% in 2025.
- Stats SA data indicate that the total number of unemployed people increased to 8.4 million during the second quarter of 2025, equating to a national unemployment rate of 33.2%, with a youth unemployment rate of 46.1% (for individuals aged 15–34 years). The expanded unemployment rate, which includes those not actively looking for work, stood at 42.9% overall and 62.1% for youth.
Overview of CSI spend
Social and community development was supported by 84% of companies and received 14% of average CSI expenditure.

- Youth (ages 14 to 34 years) remained the primary beneficiaries in the social and community development sector in 2025, receiving 42% of expenditure on average.
- The percentage of CSI spend on orphans and vulnerable children increased from 13% in 2024 to 17% in 2025.
- Unemployed persons moved from being the second to the third most supported beneficiary group, with average spend declining from 15% in 2024 to 11% in 2025.
- All other beneficiary groups received less than 10% of average CSI sector spend in 2025, including victims of violence and abuse, the aged, people with disabilities, people with HIV/Aids, homeless people and the LGBTQ+ community. Animals received 1% on average.

- On average, almost half of CSI expenditure on social and community development (47%) went to supporting welfare organisations and programmes, up from 39% in 2024.
- Infrastructure, facilities and equipment received the second-largest share of CSI spend in this sector (22%), down from 25% in 2024.
- Surprisingly, average CSI spend on job-creation programmes in this sector declined considerably, from 30% in 2023 to 16% in 2025.
[CASE STUDY] Gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation in feminist tech spaces
For organisations working at the intersection of gender, technology and justice, measuring impact can be challenging. Systemic, long-term goals such as trust, capacity-building and access to justice are not easily quantifiable. Yet rigorous, gender-responsive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is essential to ensure that programmes respond meaningfully to lived experiences, particularly in contexts marked by inequality, violence and exclusion.
Gender Rights in Tech (GRIT) is a nonprofit advancing a feminist M&E approach through its suite of digital tools designed for survivors of gender-based violence (GBV). GRIT’s tools are co-created with those most impacted by GBV and build on feminist evaluation traditions that ask deeper questions about power and justice.
These tools include:
- The free GRIT mobile application, which is data-free and supports over 12 000 users with features such as a panic button linked to rapid response services and a secure vault for storing audio, visual and narrative evidence.
- Zuzi, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot designed to provide trauma-informed, localised support to GBV survivors, especially those underserved by mainstream systems, including queer youth, rural communities, migrant women and sex workers.
Zuzi reflects how people in South Africa actually speak about harm and violence, and how they ask for help. “It uses accessible language, incorporating culturally grounded concepts of justice, community and survival,” explains Leonora Tima, founder and managing director of GRIT.
GRIT’s approach to AI is shaped by a gendered African lens that disrupts the power dynamics underpinning most AI systems, which primarily cater to people who are white, highly literate and tech-savvy. “It’s not just the language that’s Eurocentric – it’s the entire architecture: who AI is built for, what it assumes justice looks like and what kinds of knowledge it considers valid,” says Tima.
This means designing for voice-to-text users, shared phones, low data and layered trauma, with context (rural, queer, multilingual, working class) as the uppermost priority.
“We’ve had to hold the tension between protecting data and not forcing people to repeat their stories. Our system is designed to minimise that burden while still giving us the insight we need to make Zuzi better. This is where our feminist approach to M&E shows up: we treat evaluation not as surveillance, but as care. Not as extraction, but as learning. Disrupting AI isn’t just about clever prompts or language models. It is about who we design for, who we listen to and what we count as success.”
Reimagining how impact is measured
GRIT’s M&E processes don’t just measure outputs – they question assumptions. “We interrogate what ‘effective’ means and whether these tools expand access or just replicate formal, legalistic pathways that many survivors can’t or won’t use,” according to the GRIT team.
“Our work with survivors has shown that AI systems often erase the nuance of African experiences of violence, community and justice or – worse – encode biases that stigmatise them.” GRIT measures Zuzi’s impact not just by how many people use it, but by how they experience the chatbot, and then builds metrics that can speak to what Zuzi reveals about power, trust and care.
“Our M&E approach is rooted in feminist principles, which means we don’t chase vanity metrics,” says Tima. “Instead, we ask: how do survivors navigate support differently when given a tool that actually listens, responds in their language and doesn’t make them start from scratch every time, or make assumptions about their access?”
Much of GRIT’s M&E framework grew directly out of its WhatsApp line, where it has supported survivors in real time.
“From those interactions, it became immediately clear that the way someone moves through justice or care-seeking processes is deeply shaped by their race, gender, class, sexual orientation, language, socioeconomic circumstances and how those intersect with the institutions they’re asked to engage with when seeking help,” says Tima.
This means redefining what ‘progress’ means. “Sometimes it looks like asking for a protection order. Other times, it’s finally talking to a family member after years of silence. It might mean using a healthier coping mechanism, even if the broader legal system still fails them,” according to the GRIT team.
GRIT reflected on how traditional M&E metrics fail to capture the weight of trauma or non-linear recovery. Therefore, GRIT’s evaluations track aspects like confidence in Zuzi – not just by what survivors say they’ll use it for, but by how they actually use it compared to other options like Google or helplines.
“We look at emotional tone, drop-off points, what gets asked repeatedly and where people go silent. We design our indicators with these aspects in mind as they tell us as much as the data we collect from the content of the conversations themselves,” says Tima.

