Stakeholder Consultations on the Development of the White...

Funded by: Disclaimer: ―This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by StrategeQ Developments. The contents expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Stakeholder Consultations on the Development of the White Paper on Families

in South AfricaConsolidated Report

FINAL

Compiled by Lizette Berry

[Type text]


Contents

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................................3

1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................10

2. Key issues affecting the family in South Africa...........................................................................10

3. A critique of the Green Paper on Families.................................................................................12

3.1. General comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the Green Paper.......................12

3.2. Defining the family.............................................................................................................14

3.3. The Vision and Mission Statements (including aims, objectives and principles)................17

3.4. Proposed solutions and strategies.....................................................................................19

3.5. Institutional mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and evaluation.......................21

3.6. Structure of the Green Paper and proposals for the structure of the White Paper...........23

4. Considerations for implementation of the White Paper on Families.........................................23

5. Conclusions and recommendations...........................................................................................24

Appendix A................................................................................................................................................26

2 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document reports on consultations with stakeholders on the development of the White Paper on Families in South Africa that took place in all nine provinces over the February-March 2012 period. The consultative workshops were attended by a range of government and non-governmental stakeholders.

Key issues affecting the family in South Africa

Common issues raised were poverty, high mortality due to HIV/AIDS and other life-threatening diseases, substance abuse, unemployment and inequality. Other issues mentioned as critically impacting on families were migration, displacement and urbanisation; illiteracy and low education levels. Crime and gangsterism were also identified as external forces impacting on the well-being of families. Other issues raised across all the provinces were cultural change and religion, and a lack of ubuntu, resulting in changing family structures. Marriage and related stresses, marital problems, extra-marital relations and divorce were another set of issues raised frequently by groups. Participants noted a link between uncontrollable children, poor parenting and moral decay, and highlighted the collapse of moral values as a key concern. The lack of positive role models and the lack of parenting skills were also common problems. In general, breakdown in family relationships or the poor quality of relationships was raised as a key concern. Same-sex relationships were raised as an issue, both in terms of stigmatisation and raising children.

Teenage pregnancy and the social media phenomenon were also highlighted as priority issues that were contributing to the disintegration of families.

A critique of the Green Paper on Families

Strengths

A few groups noted that the Paper was useful as a base-line or draft document to be used for compiling the White Paper. Particular strengths noted were:

i. The inclusion of rural and farm families.

ii. The Paper highlights the value of international family policy and how such policy can benefit South Africa.

iii. The inclusion of factual information. However, participants were also not impressed with the inclusion of out-dated statistics, and felt that this pointed to the dire need for current and ongoing research on families in South Africa.

iv. Participants also acknowledged that the Green Paper is an attempt to address the fragmentation of the family structure. Some participants felt it was positive that this

3 | P a g e

process will result in the regulation of services to families and the promotion of family preservation and strengthening.

Weaknesses

Participants identified a range of weaknesses, the general comments are summarised below: i. The policy is reactionary rather than setting in place an innovative, firm policy directive.

ii. The policy is not clear about what it aims to achieve. It does not provide an understanding of key concepts such as ‘promoting family life and strengthening families’.

iii. The targeting of the policy was questioned. The current Paper focuses on disadvantaged communities: this focus was challenged as participants noted that family issues exist across all society groups, and therefore affluent families should not be excluded as a target group.

iv. The Paper appears to address issues in a vacuum as it does not take account of current interventions, and it fails to identify how the policy will address issues differently.

v. The policy approach to families does not support family independence and self-reliance.

vi. Participants commented on the poor quality of the Paper in terms of content, structure and language.

A few groups proposed that another round of provincial consultations is necessary before the policy proceeds to the White Paper stage, or at least at White Paper stage.

Defining the family

Workshop participants, in small groups, discussed the definition of family as articulated in the Green Paper. Participants referred to both the in-text definition and description (page 23 onwards) and the glossary definition in the draft Green Paper. Most participants across the provinces acknowledged the difficulty of defining a family comprehensively in the South African context.

Proposed solutions and strategies

As a policy document intending to provide guidelines, some participants noted that the Paper fails to give proper guidelines on how the aims will be achieved. A few groups felt that the proposed strategies were unrealistic. Some participants identified that the layout was complex and that it would be easier to read if sections were separated according to lifecycle stages. The section should focus on how the whole family will be supported through the different stages of life. Participants suggested that this approach could be adopted for the strategies and implementation mechanisms section.

Institutional mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and evaluation

4 | P a g e

Participants reviewed and commented on chapter 4 of the draft Green Paper. An identified strength is that most government departments are included. However, the roles of the various departments are not clear and responsibilities are too vague. In addition, participants noted that the Paper identifies a variety of stakeholders who are delivering services to families; a clear mechanism for co-ordination is therefore required to ensure integrated service delivery. The policy should make provision for and adequately define such a structure.

Structure of the Green Paper and proposals for the structure of the White Paper

As part of the review of the Green Paper, participants also commented on the structure and flow of the draft Green Paper and made recommendations for the structure of the White Paper. A few participants commented that the drafters of the White Paper should refer to existing policy documents for guidance on an acceptable document structure. A few participants felt that the Green Paper is well structured and that the flow of information is logical. Participants had varying perspectives on the structure and made specific recommendations to improve the document’s flow, logic, language and structure.

Conclusions & recommendations

The consultative process with relevant stakeholders highlighted stakeholders’ views on the key and emerging issues affecting families in South Africa, and on the content and structure of the draft Green Paper on Families. Major concerns raised by several provinces and suggested changes are as follows:

i. On the whole, participants called for a more ‘African-centred’ approach to the family policy.

ii. The definition of families needs review and clear articulation. The aims and objectives need refinement. Participants recommended that the aims and objectives be more specific and clearly articulate the desired outcomes of the policy and provide a clear policy directive.

iii. Although most government departments are recognised as key role-players in the provision of services to families, the Green Paper fails to clearly specify their roles and responsibilities.

iv. The structure of the White Paper should be informed by the content and reference to similar policy documents. Participants made a range of recommendations to improve the structure.

5 | P a g e

Stakeholder Consultations:

Consolidated Report on Provincial Workshops

1. Introduction

This document reports on consultations with stakeholders on the development of the White Paper on Families in South Africa that took place in all nine provinces over the February-March 2012 period. A range of participants attended the consultative workshops, however the majority of representatives were from the provincial and district Department of Social Development offices. Representatives from other government departments and the NGO sector, including the faith-based sector and community-based organisations, were also present. Overall, a total of 512 participants attended the consultative workshops.Participants engaged in group work on topics related to the context for families in South Africa and on the Green Paper on Families draft policy. Provincial groups all addressed the same topics of discussion. Group discussions were documented and the notes collated and analysed. This document consolidates and highlights the range of responses and in addition, where possible, it indicates the general consensus and participants’ dominant comments. Appendix A displays a summary table of participants’ responses by province.

2. Key issues affecting the family in South Africa

In small groups, workshop participants across the provinces identified the key and emerging issues affecting families in contemporary South Africa. Common issues raised as having detrimental effects on families in South Africa were poverty, high mortality due to HIV/AIDS and other life-threatening diseases, substance abuse, unemployment and inequality. Other issues mentioned as critically impacting on families were migration, displacement and urbanisation; illiteracy and low education levels. A third set of common issues among the groups were violence, abuse and rape, particularly forms of violence occurring within the family, such as domestic violence. Crime and gangsterism were also identified as external forces impacting on the well-being of families. Other issues raised across all the provinces were cultural change and religion, affecting family values and norms and subsequently, relationships. Culture was also discussed as a source of intra-family conflict. The lack of ubuntu was identified in several provinces as a key concern. Participants pointed out that westernisation is a main cause of cultural diversity and changes to traditional lifestyles. Changing family structures were noted as a consequence of the impact of these factors, such as single-parent households, granny-headed households and child/youth-headed households. Marriage and related stresses, marital problems, extra-marital relations and divorce were another set of issues raised frequently by groups. Linked to this, gender discrimination and other violations of human rights were raised. In particular, participants highlighted the critical

6 | P a g e

tension between observing religious, cultural and traditional practices and upholding human rights; polygamy was raised as a key example. Legislative mandates were also raised as an issue. Participants expressed that there was often a misinterpretation of individual rights, such as the phenomenon of child rights and how this interacted with discipline and corporal punishment, and parental responsibility. Participants noted a link between uncontrollable children, poor parenting and moral decay, and highlighted the collapse of moral values as a key concern. The lack of positive role models and the lack of parenting skills were also common problems. Behavioural problems were common to both adults and children.

In general, breakdown in family relationships or the poor quality of relationships was raised as a key concern. Participants described such families as characterised by poor communication, conflict, poor parenting, and poor clarity of roles and responsibilities. They highlighted a lack of parenting and communication skills, and absence of parents (whether physical or emotional absence) was identified as a causal factor.

Same-sex relationships were raised as an issue, both in terms of stigmatisation, raising children, and the questioning of whether these relationships can be considered to be a family since they are not able to procreate.

Another common issue raised was teenage pregnancy, linked to adolescent sexuality and young people’s engagement in sexual relationships when they are perhaps too young. The ‘sugar Daddy’ phenomenon was a related concern. Another aspect of teen pregnancy raised by participants is the use (or misuse) of grants. Some participants felt strongly that young girls were purposefully producing babies in order to access the Child Support Grant.

Social media and technology were raised as an issue infiltrating family life, especially with the exposure of children and youth to pornography, for example, therefore contributing to moral decay. Moral degeneration featured as a common issue in most of the consultations.

Less common issues raised were:

Corruption (resulting in government benefits such as grants not reaching intended beneficiaries)Estate rivalry (family conflict arising because of which family member is the beneficiary of an estate)Poor or ineffective implementation of government policies and servicesInfrastructure (the lack of adequate infrastructure, particularly in rural areas, impacts on family well-being, e.g., inadequate housing could result in the poor health of family members) Destitute families and the lack of basic resources (e.g., housing)Lack of quality of resources (e.g., provision of education)Lack of proper education including after-school careLack of an education system that supports the familyLack of appropriate documentationHuman traffickingDisability and chronic illnessesMental health and psychological disorders

7 | P a g e

Global warmingIsolation of familiesMedia (poor portrayal of families)Lack of integrated and family-centred interventions/servicesLack of moral values being taughtCapitalismWorking parentsAbsent fathersOrphanhood BirthOver-populationFamilies are exhausted and in crisis modeGlobalisationWars (as a cause for the influx of refugees into South Africa)Politics and racismProstitution

3. A critique of the Green Paper on Families

3.1 General comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the Green Paper

Strengths

A few groups noted that the Paper was useful as a base-line or draft document to be used for compiling the White Paper. Particular strengths noted were:

i. The inclusion of rural and farm families. ii. The Paper highlights the value of international family policy and how such policy can

benefit South Africa. iii. The Paper is well researched and based on facts. However, many participants disagreed

with this point. They felt strongly that we needed to ‘go back to our roots’ and that the policy needed to be grounded strongly on indigenous research, especially regarding family methods and patterns. Participants were also not impressed with the inclusion of out-dated statistics, and felt that this pointed to the dire need for current and ongoing research on families in South Africa1. Some participants took ownership of the problem and challenged each other to document, research and evaluate their own work. There was a strong call for more robust research on families to address the current gaps, and to inform the further development of the family policy. The Paper needs to show academic rigour and the appropriate use of references.

iv. The Paper attempts to rectify misconceptions of the past and to be inclusive of all cultures.

v. Participants also acknowledged that the Green Paper is an attempt to address the fragmentation of the family structure. It also aims to address the issue of ‘double

1 Reference was made to a study by the HSRC completed in 2007. UWC is also conducting relevant research8 | P a g e

dipping’, therefore intending to create a comprehensive policy intervention. Some participants felt it was positive that this process will result in the regulation of services to families and the promotion of family preservation and strengthening. Others supported the notion of a family policy, since we need a co-ordinating mechanism that links the various family-related policies and laws.

Weaknesses

Participants identified a range of weaknesses, most of which is documented below under specific sub-headings. More general comments are listed as follows:

i. The policy is reactionary rather than setting in place an innovative, firm policy directive. ii. The policy is not clear about what it actually wants to achieve. It does not provide an

understanding of what is meant by the concepts ‘promoting family life and strengthening families’.

iii. Some participants commented on the poor quality of the Paper in terms of content, structure and language. They commended the authors on the amount of information, but noted that the document lacked clear linkages and integration. Statements were often too broad and vague, specifically the rationale for the policy.

iv. It would be useful to have an account of how the Green Paper came into existence, but the Paper fails to provide this information. The Paper appears to address issues in a vacuum as it does not take account of current interventions, and it fails to identify how the policy will address issues differently.

v. Some participants commented on the historical and policy overview in the early chapters of the Green Paper. The GEAR and RDP are presented as if they support each other; however, much has been noted about how they conflict with one another. The RDP is also presented as though it is active and effective, yet this is not the reality, especially in the minds of people. A few participants also noted that the term RDP brings to mind the concept of free housing, and were concerned that the general public would have certain expectations should they see reference to ‘RDP’ in the family policy.

vi. Another weakness mentioned is that the policy approach to families does not support independence. There should be a stronger focus on the families’ internal strengths and ability to address their own problems before external interventions are offered.

vii. Regarding the policy’s target group, some participants argued for the use of the concept ‘families in South Africa’ rather than ‘South African families’, which acknowledges the increasing population of refugees and asylum seekers. Still others argued for the broadening of the policy focus to South African families who lived abroad.

viii. Another targeting issue raised is that the current Paper focuses on disadvantaged communities. This focus was challenged as participants noted that family issues exist across all society groups, and therefore affluent families should not be excluded as a target group.

ix. The spelling errors, grammatical mistakes and lack of or outdated referencing made the document unprofessional.

9 | P a g e

A few groups proposed that another round of provincial consultations is necessary before the policy proceeds to the White Paper stage, or at least at White Paper stage. Some participants also strongly recommended that a team of experts who are involved in family services (e.g., academics, service providers from NGOs and private practitioners) be brought in to advise and guide the drafters of the White Paper.

3.2 Defining the family

Workshop participants, in small groups, discussed the definition of family as articulated in the Green paper. Participants referred to both the in-text definition and description (page 23 onwards) and the glossary definition in the draft Green paper. Most participants across the provinces acknowledged the difficulty of defining a family comprehensively in the South African context. Participants noted a number of strengths and weaknesses of the current definition in the Green paper. A common strength that groups across the provinces identified was that the Green Paper recognised that there is no single definition of families. In addition, the definition acknowledged families to be a group of more than one person; the value of interaction and interdependence between persons; the recognition of all types of marriages and existence of a relationship between individuals. The definition also facilitated a positive network of attachment and care, regardless of blood relations. The definition attempts to be inclusive and recognises diversity in terms of family forms. Furthermore, the definition distinguishes between family and household (although there is inconsistency on this issue between the in-text definition and the glossary definition). Some participants viewed the recognition of marriage as an element contributing to the well-being of families as a strength. It was also identified that the Paper is cognisant of the realities of family life. Participants also noted that the Paper reinforces the spirit of ubuntu.

Recognition of co-habitation was also identified as a strength by some participants. However, the issue of co-habitation was a controversial issue in several provinces. Although there was a general acknowledgement that such relationships should not be discriminated against and should be offered services as needed, some participants felt that co-habiting relationships should not be considered as a family type because it compromised the stability of families and children. The inclusion of co-habiting relationships in the family policy was therefore questioned. Others raised concerns about the legality of co-habiting partners, and the repercussions of not being legally recognised as partners for the individual adults and children involved in co-habiting relationships. Some participants felt strongly that the Paper should set a standard, and that marriage must be promoted and upheld by the policy. The complexity of the issue was acknowledged and participants identified the need for further information regarding the legal status and the subsequent implications for co-habiting partners and their children. In addition, the Constitution was identified as the benchmark for decision-making regarding the inclusion or exclusion of groups in the White Paper. A concern was also raised about the use of the term co-habiting, and it was suggested that ‘living together’ is more acceptable.

These discussions raised questions about other family forms, such as a married person who has more than one sexual partner (unknown to the legal spouse) and subsequently has children in multiple families. Such relationships raised concerns about child maintenance, gender

10 | P a g e

relations, and the lack of the ‘proper’ practise of polygamy, where the wife gives consent to the husband’s relations with other persons. Some participants identified that polyamorous relationships were also practised in South Africa, where partners agree that they would not be mutually exclusive but engage in romantic relationships with more than one person simultaneously. Such arrangements should also be acknowledged in the Paper.

Other strengths identified were the sociological perspective, and the functional family perspective. Although the use of theory was commended, some participants felt that further clarity was needed on certain concepts such as ‘selective boundary maintenance’. Participants also supported the recognition of common parentage and blood relations as criteria for family relations – but not the only criteria.

Common limitations identified were that the definition is restricted to blood ties and formal/legal relations. It was felt that the definition does not reflect the make-up of South African society and its multi-cultural practices. It is too westernised. Some participants reflected that the definition should embrace all cultural perspectives and practices. It should recognise non-biological parentage too.

A criticism of the definition that was not shared by the majority related to the inclusion of inter-cultural adoption. Other concerns were that the wording ‘interacting persons who recognise a relationship with each other’ does not include individuals who are related by blood or marriage but are estranged or in conflict, thus there is no interaction or recognised relationship. The concept of interaction is problematic as it should be defined in terms of frequency and other characteristics.

Participants warned about the use of the ‘other’ category (page 25). Currently, co-habiting couples are listed there, and it implies that these relationships are not considered normal or acceptable.

A common issue raised in several provinces was the use of the word ‘culture’ in the glossary definition, which is ambiguous. Participants felt that this implied that all family members shared the same culture, which is often not the reality. Participants put forward that when a new family starts, they often develop new traditions and cultures. The definition should therefore insert appropriately that families’ practise “an assimilation of customs, traditions and religions.”

Some participants were concerned that the following family forms or types were not adequately represented in the Green Paper:

Divorced or widowed parentsBlended familiesPolyamorousNuclear including same-sex Foster care familiesCluster care familiesSingle adultsPolygamousRefugee families

11 | P a g e

Disabled persons and their familiesExtended families with multiple-layered kinship care

In addition, participants thought that the definition should take account of the following terms or concepts in relation to family roles and structure:

ResponsibilityAccountabilityFamily practices (models)Network of care and supportCivil union SurrogacyUn-official adoptionTrans-national relationshipsProtection of vulnerable membersInter-generational transfer of knowledge, values, skills and morals

Although single adults were identified as a group not receiving sufficient attention in the Green Paper, some participants disagreed that they should be regarded as a family form. They felt strongly that an individual living alone could not be regarded as a family, as a family must be defined as more than one person. An individual should be regarded as a member of a family. The fact that they are living on their own does not preclude them from relationships with people in other households. The Paper is contradictory on this point as the glossary definition defines families as a group, which differs from the in-text definition.

Some participants felt strongly that the policy should set standards in terms of family structure and function in order to promote strong families. In particular, they were concerned about the policy supporting the concept of child-headed households, divorce, and co-habitation (as part of the core definition). They recommended that the policy promotes an ideal family structure and functioning, which people need to aspire to. Others disagreed with the notion of an ideal family and felt that this approach would be exclusionary.

Participants felt that the definition needed to be clearly articulated (the current draft does not provide sufficient clarity) and that definitions used in different parts of the Paper should not contradict each other. On the whole, participants preferred the glossary definition and noted that it should be integrated into the body of the Paper, especially on page 23. In particular, the definition should clearly indicate that it is inclusive of all types of marriage.

Participants felt that the definition needed a stronger theoretical base and could be strengthened by integrating elements of feminist theory, cultural/indigenous and religious concepts, and family theory. Power relations within families need to be acknowledged. The definition of families needs to look beyond the traditional family unit. In essence, a multi-disciplinary approach should be used to develop the definition. Participants also thought it necessary to acknowledge that families are not stagnant but are constantly evolving and are fluid in structure.

12 | P a g e

Participants acknowledged that the broad nature of the current definitions is a strength; however, the broad nature could also be a limitation as it threatens the firm description of family structure. Given the complexities of conceptualising a suitable definition in the South African context, some participants felt that at least a clearly formulated working definition should be provided.

Other proposed changes are:

Develop a more suitable term for ‘skip-generation families’. Perhaps 1st/3rd generation families could be used. The term ‘single parent’ is self-explanatory; therefore the explanation can be removed. ‘Child-headed household”: rephrase to state that the head of household is 18 years.Married couple – remove husband and wife.

3.2.1 Proposed definitions or amendments to the current definitions

Groups proposed the following definitions or amendments to the Green Paper definitions:“A family is a system characterised by an emotional bond which is governed by common principles.”“A family is a structure where the man/husband is the head. He is deputised by the woman, and the children are the descendants. Within the structure are laws/guidelines to govern the structure for peaceful co-existence.” This proposal did not receive support from other groups.A family is: “a group of people recognising each other as family, either by blood-relation, or choice, sharing a home (or not) and share an identity as family.” “A family is an individual or group of persons united by the ties of marriage, blood, adoption or cohabitation, characterised by a common residence (household) or not, interacting and communicating with one another in their respective family roles, maintaining an assimilation of customs, traditions, religions and common culture and governed by family rules in a loving, respectful, caring and supportive ‘household’.”Replace “governed by family rules” to “shared norms and values”. Replace “common parentage” with “kinship”.

3.3 The Vision and Mission Statements (including aims, objectives and principles)

Participants reviewed the vision, mission, aims, objectives and principles of the Green Paper. Comments and recommendations for improvement were provided, as described below.

3.3.1 The Vision statement

Some participants recommended that the word ‘viable’ is replaced by ‘self-reliant’. A recommended Vision statement from participants is: “A resourced, well-functioning, viable and stabilized family.”

13 | P a g e

3.3.2 The Mission statement

Some participants recommended that the Mission statement be amended to read as follows: “to empower families to realise their obligation and responsibilities”. Another group suggested that the mission statement read as follows: “to empower families in restoring their dignity, social functioning and well-being in order to enable them to perform their requisite roles and responsibilities.” Several participants commented that the use of the word ‘play’ is too mild.

3.3.3 Aims and objectives of the Green Paper

Some participants noted that it’s a strength that the policy is adopting a family perspective rather than focusing on individuals, and is aiming to create a cohesive community. Another strength is that the policy is giving the responsibility for caring for individuals and for the restoration of ubuntu back to families. The Paper promotes positive values. Some participants suggested that the policy should identify the family’s contribution to the community first, rather than to the country.

Currently the Green Paper states that part of the aim of the Paper is to “call for a new approach toward the family in South Africa.” A group suggested that the word ‘harness’ is used instead of ‘call for’. Another recommendation was made to replace ‘new’ with the term ‘innovative’. They also felt that the use of the word ‘government-wide’ in section 1.7 makes the aim unnecessarily complex. The term ‘wide’ should be removed and the sentence simplified.

Some participants were concerned about the notion of the family as a ‘key developmental imperative’. They questioned whether all families are constantly developing, or whether the Paper was targeting families that needed development. If so, this had specific implications about the kinds of strategies that should be adopted. Overall, participants were not clear about who the policy was intended for.

A few groups felt that no changes to the current aims and objectives were necessary and that is was satisfactory.

Participants noted poor distinction between the aims section and the objectives section, as the objectives section seems to be a continuation of the aims. This creates confusion for the reader. Some participants also queried who the policy is intended for; they were concerned that the focus of the objectives on the ‘vulnerable’ and ‘poor’ was patronising.

Some felt that the focus on families uplifting themselves was positive. They raised a concern that the policy should not foster dependency on government services and support.

Several participants also noted that it is common practice for objectives to start with the word ‘to’. Comments on individual objectives are:

Objective (a) – it seems to recognise the human capabilities approach but this approach is not included in the theories section informing the Paper. Some participants also suggested that the word ‘negotiate’ is replaced with ‘attain’ and ‘maximise’ is replaced with ‘engage’.

14 | P a g e

Objective (b) – the phrasing of this objective raises concern that the Paper places sole responsibility on individuals or families to uplift themselves. This is seen as patronising, it implies that families need to ‘sort themselves out’. Government is not given any roles or responsibilities. There is a disconnect with the previous section which acknowledges apartheid as a causal factor for the demise of families in South Africa. The objectives should recognise the structural role of poverty and its impact on families.

Objective (c) – some participants questioned how this objective would be achieved, and proposed that life skills education is seen as a key method of achieving this objective.

Recommended additions to the Aims and Objectives of the Green Paper (page 17):

To promote awareness in respect of family responsibility and rights Reflect the need for preparation for parentingThe delivery of a comprehensive, co-ordinated and synchronised approach to service delivery to families in order to strengthen their supportive, socialising and nurturing practices (proposed as an additional objective)

3.3.4 Principles

Participants commented on the principles and provided suggested amendments, as well as additions to the list of principles, provided below.A few groups raised concern about the principle promoting marriage (1.8.5). They questioned the notion that marriage is essential for stability. However, they did not disagree with it’s inclusion as a principle, but felt that alternatives must be provided for persons who do not practice or honour marriage. Therefore, the inclusion of a principle about stable relationships is suggested, which would take account of living arrangements other than marriage. A few participants disagreed with the inclusion of the marriage principle altogether, and recommended that the Paper rather states that relationships should be promoted and strengthened.

1.8.7 on Partnership: Participants felt that the use of the word ‘it’ with reference to families is degrading and should be removed. Some participants noted that the emphasis should be on families’ active role in addressing their issues, rather than a passive role. 1.8.4 on Community participation: Participants recommend that the second sentence be amended as follows: “To this end, Government and other actors will promote active participation of the community in actions through ubuntu, community dialogue and participation that safeguard, interact with and support the family.”1.8.1 on Human rights: It is recommended that the second sentence reads: “Through socialisation, the foundation is laid for children to be tolerant of views, responsibilities and rights of their own and those other than their own…”1.8.3 on Family strengths: It is recommended that the second sentence reads: “It is important to recognise these qualities and assess them properly…” 1.8.6 on Parenting: Remove the words “Parents or caregivers will be encouraged to play their expected roles”, which has a judgemental connotation. Instead, the following is

15 | P a g e

recommended: “Parents will be provided with the necessary guidelines and support...” It is important to state that parents will be supported in their parenting roles. Moral regeneration should be included as a principle.Enhancing the strengths of families should be emphasised as a principle. In addition to 1.8.5, a principle promoting stable relationships must be included.

3.4 Proposed solutions and strategies

Participants discussed the proposed strategies and solutions. Overall, the predominant view is that this section should be developed substantially as more detail is needed to clarify what the proposed strategies are and how they are to be implemented. As a policy document intending to provide guidelines, some participants noted that the Paper fails to give proper guidelines on how the aims will be achieved. A few groups felt that the proposed strategies were unrealistic. Some participants identified that the layout was complex and that it would be easier to read if sections were separated according to lifecycle stages, e.g., infants, childhood, youth, adulthood, older persons. Concern was expressed that the Paper tends to describe interventions for children, and not the whole family. The section should focus on how the whole family will be supported through the different stages of life. Participants also suggested that this approach could be adopted for the strategies and implementation mechanisms section, to ensure that there is a common framework for these two sections which are very inter-linked.

Other general concerns were about the relationship between this policy and existing legislation and policies. Participants noted that there were areas of overlap and that in some cases, proposals contradicted existing legislation. For example, the Paper seems to be promoting foster care while the Children’s Act promotes family preservation, which is seen as a contradiction. The Paper also contradicts itself as its primary focus is to strengthen families, therefore, it cannot also promote foster care. The White Paper should demonstrate alignment with existing legislation and policies, and common terms and concepts should be used in the same way as portrayed in existing legislation.

Some participants queried what aspects of families the policy intends to strengthen. They suggested that a strong theoretical base is needed to frame the policy’s intentions and identify specific strategies. Suggestions of theories to draw from are: Sen (capabilities approach), Bronfenbrenner (ecological approach), the theory of resilience, ethics of care as a function within families, post-structuralist views of families.

Specific comments on strategies and gaps identified are as follows:

Succession planning needs to be incorporated.Strategies to support victims in the family environment should be included. Guidelines are needed on victim empowerment and support within the family, in relation to after-care and rehabilitation. Protection and security issues for families are not identified or addressed. The family group or restorative approach should be included as a strategy.

16 | P a g e

A group also called for the use of one-stop service centres at local level to ensure accessibility of services to all families. Groups that called for the recognition of families’ strengths and resilience also thought that the Paper needed to include a strategy to ensure that gaps in skills are identified so that self-reliance can be developed. Several groups mentioned that the strategies section pays very little attention to awareness and preventative measures. It is crucial that we move away from a curative approach to a preventative approach to ensure maximum impact and enduring change in families. A few groups mentioned financial assistance to families in the form of a social grant,

for example, a family grant. This intervention is recommended as a tool to prevent family disintegration, to enhance family cohesion and to assist dysfunctional families who are also financially unstable. Participants recommended that the possibility of a grant that supports families rather than individuals is explored. Currently, individual grants are used to support families as a whole. There were mixed feelings about this notion, as several participants cautioned against creating further dependence; they felt strongly that the current grant system causes dependency.

The section on family support should highlight the role of parents as the agents who give support more specifically.The Paper should specify types of family care, including foster care. In some situations, long term foster care is required.The term ‘compensatory family support’ was not clear and the relevant example was not helpful. Some participants suggested that the term ‘restorative family support’ is used instead. Parenting programmes should not be restricted to first-time parents only. In addition, the paragraph on social cohesion was not understood.Participants were concerned about the appropriateness of the language in this section. For example, on page 45, the term ‘preventing’ is preferred to ‘curbing’ and ‘stemming’. ‘Older persons’ is preferred to ‘aged’.

Some participants felt that the Paper needed to pay more attention to families in crisis and that the following strategies should be described in greater detail:

Group work for parentsMediation (needed to manage divorce effectively and ensure the interests of all parties involved, especially children)Community development and upliftmentFamily re-unification and preservationMarriage enrichment and counsellingAssessment of families (for example, include to family strengthening list on page 51). Assessment should be applied in certain areas, such as the developmental phases of a child, parenting ability and environmental factors. The development and use of family assessment tools was also recommended, in particular, such tools should be relevant to

17 | P a g e

indigenous cultures. It was suggested that the MacMaster family model is considered toward the development of an assessment tool.

3.5 Institutional mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and evaluation

Participants reviewed and commented on chapter 4 of the draft Green Paper. An identified strength is that most government departments are included. However, the roles of the various departments are not clear and responsibilities are too vague. In addition, participants noted that the Paper identifies different stakeholders who are delivering services to families. However, this can lead to fragmentation and a clear mechanism for co-ordination is therefore required. The Paper needs to make provision for and adequately define such a structure; the current draft of the Green Paper fails to do so. Specific comments and contributions are listed below:

The Child Justice Act and Domestic Violence Act was not mentioned in the Paper. A group identified the lack of time-frames as a weakness. A group felt that the role of volunteerism versus remuneration as expressed in the Paper is contradictory. Some participants felt that the Paper should include families themselves as role-players and implementers of the policy, to ensure that family members are subject to legislative mandates. Participants noted that the Paper did not recognise or call for integration between departments and other structures and civil society. A holistic approach should be adopted in relation to partnership between departments to ensure synergy. The role of the Department of Justice is to ensure that the criminal justice system is in place and operating smoothly. Safety and security is the role of the police services and not Dept. of Justice. This must be clarified in the implementation mechanisms chapter.

Participants noted that the following role-players had been omitted from the draft Paper:

SASSA Local governmentDept of AgricultureInternational organisations such as ILO, UN Development Programme, UNICEF, UNAIDSTraditional healers and faith-based organisationsDSD Community Development section

3.5.1 Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

Regarding M&E, some participants suggested that surveys should be conducted to assess the impact of services rendered and to identify gaps in service delivery, for example, client satisfaction surveys. The development of client service standards is also necessary. Currently, the Paper does not give any clear guidelines for conducting impact assessments or on a review system.

18 | P a g e

Guidelines on M&E should be clear, for example a monitoring tool and measures should be identified. Participants expressed their concern that the current Paper does not give sufficient detail on a M&E framework, and noted that it needed development. Ideally, M&E should flow down from the Presidency to the local level where implementation occurs. Process flow charts and training on M&E would be very useful.

Participants noted that that M&E should be evidence-based, and that suitable methods must be researched in relation to the changing trends in families. It should also be based on targets set by role-players. Implementing role-players should provide reports to the lead department.

Other participants noted that there are current problems with DSD’s M&E system and this should be considered when developing the M&E for the family policy to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes. The training and background of the assessor is also an important consideration.

Participants also noted that co-operation between departments remains an acute problem. A multi-disciplinary approach to M&E is needed, in particular to ensure that departments (other than DSD) rendering services to families are in fact doing so. The White Paper should clearly specify the M&E of inter-departmental and multi-stakeholder co-operation.

Some participants noted that chapter 4 did not contain any details on institutional mechanisms for implementation. They requested that a clear framework is provided on which comments can be made.

3.6 Structure of the Green Paper and proposals for the structure of the White Paper

As part of the review of the Green Paper, participants also commented on the structure and flow of the draft Green Paper and made recommendations for the structure of the White Paper. A few participants commented that the drafters of the White Paper should refer to existing policy documents for guidance on an acceptable document structure. Some participants felt that the Green Paper is well structured and that the flow of information is logical. Agreement was not reached on this point, as several groups felt that the lay-out of the document was not sequential (e.g., chapter 4 currently has a section on the roles of government departments, then M&E, followed by a section on the roles of other role-players).

Participants had varying perspectives on the structure. An example of participants’ views on chapter 1 is indicated below. A group recommended that Chapter 1 should be structured as follows:

1.2. Vision; 1.3. Mission ; 1.4. Aims of the Paper; 1.5. Rationale; 1.6. Statement of the problem; 1.7. Perspectives; 1.8. Principles

However, others disagreed and thought that the problem statement should precede the rationale. Another group suggested that perspectives and approaches should not be contained in chapter 1, chapter 2 (after 2.2.) would be a more appropriate location. Others thought that the statement of the problem should be included in the introduction. Detailed feedback on the structure is contained in the individual provincial reports.

19 | P a g e

Specific suggestions for improvement to the structure, flow and gaps in the document are as follows:

Participants noted that the font size needed to be increased to improve readability and suggested that the font type be changed to Tahoma. Section 2.3 does not correspond with the content of 2.3.2, this should be rectified. A gap in the chapter addressing poverty is that post-apartheid poverty is not addressed adequately. The repetition between chapters 3 and 4 needs to be addressed. Task-centred and problem-solving approaches should be included in the section on theoriesMost sections of the document needed to be broken down further into ‘digestable’ parts to make reading easier. Monitoring and evaluation should be a separate section on its own. Greater emphasis must be placed on prevention and perhaps it should be afforded a separate section.

4. Considerations for implementation of the White Paper on Families

Participants engaged in an activity to develop implementation plans to address specific problems and challenges that families in South Africa are experiencing. The specific problems or challenges relate to section two above describing the key issues affecting families in South Africa. Participants identified strategies and actions for addressing the problem, stake-holders who play a role in implementation of the strategies, stake-holder roles, responsibilities and collaboration, and the systems, structures and resources needed to ensure and support implementation of the strategies. The detailed implementation plans are operational in nature and are attached to the individual provincial reports. However, useful considerations and recommended structures for implementation are listed here as follows:

Family conference groups (role-players involved in service delivery to families at a local level such as DSD officials, NGOs, private practitioners, Dept of Health officials, traditional leaders, etc) meet regularly to discuss common issues and agree on solutionsFamily committees (multi-disciplinary teams) per areaLocal family advisory committees

Participants commented that it is useful to develop primary and secondary strategies to address multi-layered, complex problems.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

The consultative process with relevant stakeholders highlighted stakeholders’ views on the key and emerging issues affecting families in South Africa, and on the content and structure of the draft Green Paper on Families. An array of challenges and issues facing families were discussed. Participants applauded the draft Green Paper for it’s recognition of the legacy of

20 | P a g e

apartheid and the associated impact on families. The Green Paper is viewed as a useful base-line document, setting out an initial policy intention for the development of a national family policy. However, several weaknesses of the draft Paper impede it’s effectiveness as a policy proposal. Major concerns raised by several provinces and suggested changes are as follows:

On the whole, participants called for a more ‘African-centred’ approach to the family policy. Participants commented on the need for the recognition and inclusion of indigenous culture and traditional family practices. This is evident in the call from most provincial groups for the policy to promote the practice of ubuntu. In general, participants noted a lack of research in South Africa on indigenous family practices and family life and expressed the urgent need for relevant up-to-date research to inform the policy. The definition of families needs review and clear articulation. Discrepancies between the in-text definition and the glossary definition need to be addressed. Participants noted a range of issues that should be changed. On the whole, participants felt that attention should be paid to how indigenous culture is represented, and the role of culture in families; and that particular groups should be included or better represented, e.g., foster families, blended families, polygamous families, grandmother-headed households. The aims and objectives need refinement. Participants recommended that the aims and objectives be more specific and clearly articulate the desired outcomes of the policy and provide a clear policy directive. As the intention of the policy is to provide an overarching policy framework that would co-ordinate and synchronise existing policy and interventions relevant to families, this should be clearly articulated in the aims and objectives. Key concepts such as ‘promoting family life’ and ‘strengthening families’ should be clearly defined. The objectives should be clearly distinguished from the aims and formulated clearly as objectives, specifying the actions to be taken to address key issues. Participants were also unclear about which groups the policy is targeting. Reference made to the ‘poor’ and ‘disadvantaged’ were noted as inappropriate.The contents of the solutions and strategies chapter need explanation and expansion. Participants requested further detail and clarity on the proposed strategies. Key strategies that have been omitted are prevention and awareness raising interventions and family preservation interventions. Alternative structures for the layout of the section were recommended, for example, according to lifecycle stages. The chapter on mechanisms for implementation and monitoring and evaluation received criticism for lack of specificity and clarity. Although most government departments are recognised as key role-players in the provision of services to families, the Green Paper fails to clearly specify their roles and responsibilities. The Paper also does not provide a clear framework for a co-ordinating mechanism which is necessary due to the multiple role-players, at multiple levels, who will facilitate implementation of the policy. For similar reasons, the monitoring and evaluation section was regarded as unsatisfactory. Participants recommended that a multi-disciplinary and holistic approach is adopted, for the development of the co-ordinating mechanism and the

21 | P a g e

monitoring and evaluation framework. This section of the policy needs further development and should pay attention to defining the roles and responsibilities of key role-players, and developing a co-ordinating mechanism for integrated service delivery to families. Key role-players omitted from the draft Paper are faith-based organisations, SASSA and local government. The structure of the White Paper should be informed by the content and reference to similar policy documents. The Green Paper was noted to be repetitive in some sections and could be made more reader-friendly by simplifying the language, correcting grammatical and spelling errors and breaking down certain sections into smaller parts. The flow of the document can be improved by slight restructuring of the sections and by including pertinent information such as the process of development of the Green Paper. It was recommended that monitoring and evaluation be separated and developed as a stand-alone section.

22 | P a g e


Appendix A

Summary of stakeholder responses from the Green Paper on Families consultations by provinceProvince General critique

of policy Definition of family

Vision, Mission, aims & objectives

Proposed solutions & strategies

Mechanisms for implementation, M&E

Structure of policy document

Eastern Cape

Emphasize the role of families in the community

Acknowledge the functions of families

Indigenous knowledge should be recognised

Concern over ambiguous use of ‘culture’ in definition

Include non-biological parentage

Definition needs to be more inclusive

Address contradictions between text & glossary

Recognise the life-cycle of families

Rephrase the aims & objectives to clearly state the policy’s approach

Aims should take cognisance of existing initiatives & aim to improve these rather than introduce a ‘new’ approach

Objectives should specify the actions needed to address issues & provide a framework to guide the policy’s application

Greater specificity, clarity & explanation of strategies is needed

Recommended the inclusion of several strategies, e.g., promotion of legal knowledge, health promoting programmes, promoting ubuntu

Expand the roles & responsibilities of stakeholders

FBO’s and private sector stakeholders have been omitted

Avoid repetition, especially between chapters 1,2 & 3

M&E should be a stand-alone section

Free State Clarify & expand the target group (include affluent

Concern over ambiguous use of ‘culture’ in

Slight rephrasing and simplifying of

Family-centred approach should

A co-ordination mechanism must be developed &

Layout should be more sequential

[Type text]

Province General critique of policy

Definition of family





families & well-functioning families)

definition

Definition needs to be more inclusive & treat all family forms in SA as equal

Simplify concepts in the definition & increase clarity

the aims

The objectives need clarification

be included

Greater recognition of families’ internal strengths & self-reliance

Focus on family preservation & family enrichment

described.

Specify the need for integration between & within departments, other structures & civil society

Elaborate clear guidelines & tools for M&E

& logical.

Improve spelling, language & terminology

Gauteng The document does not focus on the optimal functioning of families – lack of emphasis on prevention

Define key concepts

This policy can only be effective if it is mainstreamed across existing


Definition needs to be more inclusive & treat all family forms in SA as equal (support for glossary definition)

Concern over ambiguous use of ‘culture’ in

Clearly distinguish between the aims & objectives

Responsibility must be shifted back to the family – promote self-reliance

Promote a systems approach & family-centred approach

Revision, greater specificity & explanation of strategies & programmes is needed

Include programmes to maintain healthy/well-functioning families

Roles & responsibilities of stakeholders must be well articulated

Promote a multi-disciplinary approach

Private sector, local government & the religious sector have been omitted

Chapter 3 should be restructured, e.g., it should start with the approaches

Chapter 2 is too detailed & should be summarised

24 | P a g e







programmes

Target all sectors of society – all families

definition Empower & strengthen extended families

Promote programmes that are indigenous

Concern that current legislation will hamper policy implementation

KwaZulu-Natal

More relevant, updated indigenous research should be included

Consult existing, relevant documents (e.g., the family strategy & family preservation plan) to avoid re-inventing the wheel

The policy seems to focus more on background information than on implementation

Rephrase concepts in the definition & increase clarity; address contradictions between text & glossary


Greater recognition of multicultural family practices


Emphasise the role of families in the community

Clarify how the policy intends to address the tension between cultural diversity/practices and observing human rights

Acknowledge the diversity of family forms

Emphasise the provision of services along the continuum of care, including prevention & early

Greater specificity & explanation of strategies is needed

Clarify & expand the target group (include affluent families & well-functioning families)

Research on the proposed strategies is needed to assess their effectiveness

Highlight preventative and promotive

A clear institutional framework for implementation by multiple stakeholders, & the roles & responsibilities of stakeholders must be articulated

A co-ordination mechanism must be developed & described.

Elaborate clear guidelines for M&E, informed by ongoing research

Address repetition, improve language & terminology

M&E should be a separate section

Include SA’s legislative framework

Integrated & inter-sectoral collaboration should be a separate section

The technical presentation (structure & language) needs

25 | P a g e







intervention strategies improvement

Limpopo The policy should emphasise an ‘African-centred’ approach to families

The policy should address the fragmentation of services to families

More relevant, updated indigenous research should be referred to.

Definition needs to be more inclusive & treat all family forms in SA as equal (non-discriminatory)



Focus on functionality of families rather than labelling/stigmatising family forms

Clearly distinguish between the aims & objectives

Acknowledge diversity of family forms in South Africa

Concern about a ‘one-size fits all approach’ – families cannot be micro-managed

Rephrasing of the aims & objectives to state clearly the role of the policy as a comprehensive co-ordinating mechanism aimed to synchronise service delivery to families

Greater understanding of the strategies applied on the ground is needed to inform and explain proposed strategies

Increase focus on prevention, including the multi-disciplinary nature

Increase focus on family preservation & reunification services

Promote a multi-disciplinary & integrated approach

Articulate clear roles & responsibilities for government departments & other role-players (Specify DSD as the lead department).

Develop a leadership structure (high-level structure such as the Presidency is recommended)

Elaborate clear guidelines & tools for M&E

Layout should be more sequential & logical

The document is too narrative

The objectives should be a stand-alone section (not a sub-section of the aims)

A section dedicated to a theoretical framework/approach is needed

A situational analysis including relevant South African research is needed

26 | P a g e







Mpumalanga

The policy should promote ubuntu

The policy does not address needs at grassroots level

The strengths-based perspective is not referred to

The policy should show greater recognition of the role of civil society in rendering family services

Definition needs to be more inclusive of existing family forms & treat all family forms in SA as equal (e.g. extended family)

Include greater recognition of multicultural family practices

Increase clarity

Glossary definition is preferred

Simplify the Vision & Mission

Distinguish between aims & objectives

Expansion & explanation of strategies is needed to take account of indigenous & diverse family practices

Strategies should prioritise economic empowerment

Proposed strategies should be tested/piloted before they are recommended

Articulate clear roles & responsibilities for government departments & other role-players (especially FBOs’ and NGOs).

Measures for monitoring are not clear

The glossary should be moved to the front

Northern Cape

More relevant (indigenous), updated research should be included.

Address contradictory research findings


Definition needs to be more inclusive of existing family forms &

Define key concepts, e.g., family life

Specify that this policy will serve as a comprehensive co-ordinating mechanism aimed

Expand the target group, i.e., rich & well-functioning families should also be targeted

Expand & elaborate to

Concern that existing legislation will hamper implementation of this policy

Articulate clear roles & responsibilities for government

The document (terminology) is not user-friendly, haphazard & non-sequential

Language should be simplified, less theoretical

27 | P a g e







Implementation not realistic

Emphasise the fostering of resilience in families

marriages, & should focus more on family functioning


to synchronise service delivery to families

Objectives are idealistic & repetitive

Review the vision

ensure a comprehensive, feasible set of strategies

Guidelines for implementation of strategies are not clear

departments & other role-players.

Specify roles & responsibilities for M&E functions – expand M&E

Specify co-ordination functions

Glossary should be in the beginning of the document

Principles & legislative framework should be in the beginning

North West Greater inclusion of indigenous (African) research is needed

Greater recognition of families’ internal strengths & self-reliance

Include greater recognition of multicultural family practices

Restricted to blood ties & formal relations


Slight rephrasing of the Vision

Mission statement to emphasis empowerment of families

Slight rephrasing and simplifying of the aims

Greater specificity & realistic explanation of strategies is needed

Recommended the inclusion of several strategies, e.g., victim empowerment within families, family restorative approach, one-

Articulate clear roles & responsibilities for government departments & other role-players.

Specify the need for integration between & within departments, other structures & civil society

Elaborate clear guidelines & a multi-disciplinary

Layout should be more sequential & logical.

M&E should be a separate section.

Improve language & terminology

28 | P a g e







stop family service centres

approach to M&E

Western Cape

The draft policy contains much information, but there are no clear linkages between the chapters

Statements are too broad and vague, & therefore do not provide understanding of key concepts. The rationale in particular was identified as too vague

More relevant (indigenous), updated research should be included

Restricted to blood ties & formal relations

Include non-biological parentage, widowhood & divorce

Definition needs to be more inclusive of all types of marriage & family forms in SA & more theoretical


Rephrase the aims & objectives to clearly state the role of the policy as a comprehensive co-ordinating mechanism aimed to synchronise service delivery to families

Concern about patronising tone of objectives – places sole responsibility on families to uplift themselves

The policy does not identify how it proposes to address issues differently

Improve layout of chapter, possibly according to lifecycle stages

Increase focus on prevention

Ensure synchrony with other legislation, e.g., Children’s Act

Include faith-based organisations & local government

Elaborate clear guidelines for M&E

Prevention should be clearly identified as part of the structure of the document

Address poor flow, repetition, language, terminology and grammatical errors

29 | P a g e

30 | P a g e

Stakeholder Consultations on the Development of the White...

Documents

Transcript of Stakeholder Consultations on the Development of the White...