In 2004, 15.6% of the households in the country had at least one member receiving money from government social programs; in the Northeast region the percentage was 32%. In these benefited households, 91% had income per capita [1] of up to one minimum wage, and 1.1% of more than 2 minimum wages. These data and similarly relevant information are part of the PNAD supplement on Access to Income Transfer from Social Programs, which includes separated tables with data referring to Brazilian Major Regions and Federative Units.

Among the government social programs, at federal, state and municipal levels, there are programs intended to provide support for families receiving the lowest transfers. Among the income programs surveyed were the so-called gas-aid – R$ 7.50 paid every two months to low-income families as subsidy to the purchase of kitchen gas, and also the Continued Installments Assistance Benefit  - BPC-LOAS – of 1 minimum wage per month.

Carried out by IBGE, the National Household Sample Survey (PNAD), interviewed 399 354 persons in 139157 housing units spread all over the country.

In 2004, about eight million households were benefited with government social programs for income transfer 

Of all the private households in Brazil, in 15.6% at least one member had received money from government social programs. The Northeast region had the highest indicator (32.0%) and the Southeast region, the lowest one (7.9%).

Among Brazilian municipalities with monthly income per capita of up to ¼ of the minimum wage, the proportion of housing units in which at least one dweller received monetary benefits from the government reached 50.3%; in the group receiving over 2 minimum wages the percentage was 0.7%. A similar trend was observed in all regions.

In private households in which at least one member received money from government social programs, almost 91% had household income per capita of up to 1 minimum wage and 1.1% of more than 2 minimum wages. In the households in which no member had received income transfers from government programs, the percentage of persons not receiving any income or receiving household monthly income per capita of up to 1 minimum wage was 43.0%. Those receiving more than 2 minimum wages amounted to 27.2%.

Still according to the IBGE survey, the average income in the households with at least one member receiving money from government social programs (R$ 458) was lower than that of members who did not receive any type of benefit (R$ 880).

 Percentage of housing units with electricity was lower in the benefited municipalities

The IBGE survey also investigated the conditions of the housing units of those receiving and not receiving money from government social programs. The percentage of households with proper sewage disposal (existing when the sanitation system is connected to the sewage disposal system or septic tank) was 42.4% in the group of benefited households and of 73.9% in the group of non-benefited households. In relation to the existence of water supply systems, these percentages were 69.0% and 84.7%, respectively.

Concerning the proportion of households having refuse disposal services, the difference was also relevant (66.0% for those receiving benefits and 88.3% for those not receiving). In terms of households with electricity, the percentage in the group receiving money from the government was 92.9% and in the other group, 97.6%. With reference to the existence of telephone lines, these percentages were 34.9% and 71.2%, respectively.

Percentage of households having a refrigerator was lower among the benefited households

In relation to the possession of the goods most commonly present in households, there were significant differences among the groups receiving (72.1% for refrigerators, 81.7% for radios and 82.5% for television sets) and not receiving money from government social programs (90.3% for refrigerators, 89.0% for radios and 91.8% for television sets). Considering not very common goods, there were differences as well. In the group of benefited households, 6.1% had a freezer, 7.6% a washing machine and 1.4% a personal computer. In the non-benefited group, the percentages were 19.3%, 39.6% and 19.2%, respectively.

Socioeconomic profile of household members

In the households benefited by money transfers from government social programs, the average number of members was 4.8 and in those not benefited, 3.3. This difference was observed in all the Brazilian regions.

In the group of persons living in households benefited by monetary benefits, children and teenagers represented 48.0% and the elderly 60 years old and over, 5.0%. Considering the population living in households not receiving these benefits, the equivalent percentages were 28.7% and 11.1%, respectively.

In relation to the classification by color or race, it was observed that the proportion of persons self-declared black or dark-skinned was much higher among the population living in households where there were income transfers (66.6%) than in the other group (42.8%).

The illiteracy rate was another indicator which showed the difference, in terms of access to education, between the two groups. Considering the population 10 years old or over, the illiteracy rate was 18.2% for the members of households receiving monetary aid from government social programs and 8.6% for the members of household not receiving the same type of benefit.

Level of occupation was higher among children and teenagers in the benefited households

The level of occupation (percentage of employed persons among the population 10 years of age or over) considering the members of households receiving monetary benefits from government social programs lower (52.1%) than of those not receiving benefits (57.7%).

The participation of children and teenagers in this group was more intense in the households receiving money from government social programs than in those not benefited. In the group of members of households receiving this benefit, the level of occupation of the groups of persons between 10 and 14 years of age was 14.8% and in the group between 15 and 17 years of age, it was 38.1%. Among the members of non-benefited households, this percentage fell to 7.1% and 27.9%, respectively.

The levels of participation of the population in the job market were very different among themselves. Agriculture was the segment which employed most persons living in households which receiving money from government social programs (43.7%), whereas services was the one which concentrated those living in non-benefited households (43.6%).

Persons with a registered job (with a formal contract, military and civil servants) amounted to 38.3% of the group formed by categories of employees and domestic workers, considering the members of households which received monetary benefits from government social programs, and 66.2% of the group living in households not receiving these benefits. These percentages were, respectively, 43.9% and 70.7% in the group of employees and 14.2% and 29.3% in the group of domestic workers.

The socioeconomic profile of household reference persons

It is worth pointing out that the percentage of the age group between 30 and 49 years of age of employed household reference persons in the households receiving money from governmental social programs was higher than in the case of households not receiving the benefits. The group 60 years of age or over represented 8.4% of the employed reference persons in the households which had this type of benefit and 10.9% in the households which did not.

The level of occupation of reference persons in the households receiving money from government social programs (79.1%) was higher than in households not receiving this type of benefit (73.7%). These percentages were, respectively, 87.2% and 81.7% among men, and 54.7% and 52.0% among women.

The group of reference persons working without compensation was 4.3% in the first group and 2.8% in the second. Considering the total number of employed persons, these percentages were, respectively, 23.5% and 8.2%. As a consequence, in the group of household reference persons, the percentage of own-account workers and employers was higher than in the total employed population. In the group of reference persons who received benefits, mainly, the percentage of own-account workers reached 40.7%, a figure very different from that of the total employed population (25.3%). For the members of households which did not receive any monetary benefit from the government, these two percentages were, respectively, 28.3 and 21.2%.

It was also seen that the proportion of employees registered in the group of domestic workers was higher among the population of household reference persons than in the total number of households, both in terms of households receiving and in terms of those not receiving monetary benefits from government social programs.

_________________________________

[1] Household monthly income per capita is the division of the household monthly income by the number of members of the household, not considering those who were pensionists and domestic workers or their relatives.

See also:

Education supplement of IBGE investigates, for the first time, supply and consumption of school lunch