Stakeholder Consultations on the Development of the White Paper on Families in South Africa
Consolidated Report
FINAL
Compiled by Lizette Berry

Contents

Executive Summary

1.Introduction

2.Key issues affecting the family in South Africa

3.A critique of the Green Paper on Families

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

3.2.Defining the family

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

3.4.Proposed solutions and strategies

3.5.Institutional mechanisms for implementation, monitoring and evaluation

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

4.Considerations for implementation of the White Paper on Families

5.Conclusions and recommendations

Appendix A

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:

  1. The inclusion of rural and farm families.
  2. The Paper highlights the value of international family policy and how such policy can benefit South Africa.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 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:

  1. The policy is reactionary rather than setting in place an innovative, firm policy directive.
  2. 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’.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. The policy approach to families does not support family independence and self-reliance.
  6. 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

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:

  1. On the whole, participants called for a more ‘African-centred’ approach to the family policy.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

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 Adisplays 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 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 amisinterpretation 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 services
  • Infrastructure (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 care
  • Lack of an education system that supports the family
  • Lack of appropriate documentation
  • Human trafficking
  • Disability and chronic illnesses
  • Mental health and psychological disorders
  • Global warming
  • Isolation of families
  • Media (poor portrayal of families)
  • Lack of integrated and family-centred interventions/services
  • Lack of moral values being taught
  • Capitalism
  • Working parents
  • Absent fathers
  • Orphanhood
  • Birth
  • Over-population
  • Families are exhausted and in crisis mode
  • Globalisation
  • Wars (as a cause for the influx of refugees into South Africa)
  • Politics and racism
  • Prostitution

3.A critique of the Green Paper on Families

3.1General 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:

  1. The inclusion of rural and farm families.
  2. The Paper highlights the value of international family policy and how such policy can benefit South Africa.
  3. 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 Africa[1]. 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.
  4. The Paper attempts to rectify misconceptions of the past and to be inclusive of all cultures.
  5. 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 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:

  1. The policy is reactionary rather than setting in place an innovative, firm policy directive.
  2. 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’.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. The spelling errors, grammatical mistakes and lack of or outdated referencing made the document unprofessional.

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.