THE IMPACT OF THE COMMUNITY WORK PROGRAMME ON VIOLENCE IN ORANGE FARM Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) study on the Community Work Programme (CWP) Malose Langa August 2015 Acknowledgements This report is based on research carried out in Orange Farm in 2014. I would like to thank the many people, including staff and participants within the Community Work Programme and others, who contributed to the research by participating in interviews and focus groups and in other ways. The research was also supported by feedback from members of the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) Urban Violence Study Group, including Hugo van der Merwe, Themba Masuku, Jasmina Brankovic, Kindisa Ngubeni and David Bruce. Many others at CSVR also assisted with this work in one way or another. David Bruce assisted with the editing of the report. © September 2015, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation 3rd Floor, Forum V, Braampark Office Park, 33 Hoofd Street, Braamfontein P O Box 30778, Braamfontein, 2017, South Africa; Tel: (011) 403-5650. Fax: (011) 388-0819. Email: [email protected]. CSVR website: http://www.csvr.org.za This work was carried out with financial support from the UK Government’s Department for International Development and the International Development Research Centre, Canada. The opinions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect those of DFID or IDRC. International Development Research Centre Centre de recherches pour le développement international Table of Contents Introduction 3 Linkages between government departments 35 Methodology 4 and the Orange Farm CWP Overview of Orange Farm 7 Role played by CoJ in Orange Farm and 35 relationship to CWP Crime in Orange Farm 9 Role played by CWP in linking community 35 The problem of domestic violence 11 members with state resources Local politics in Orange Farm 12 General assessments of the relationship 36 History and characteristics of the 14 between CWP and state departments CWP in Orange Farm Attitudes to and impacts of the CWP 37 Proud to Serve Campaign 14 General appreciation of and dedication to Establishment of CWP in Region G 14 the CWP Changes in site management after 15 CWP strengthens social bonds between 38 establishment of the Region G site community members Impact of changes 15 Helping the needy facilitates social 38 Governance issues in CWP Orange Farm 15 cohesion Reference Committee in Orange Farm 17 The CWP increases participation in 39 Recruitment of participants into CWP 19 stokvels Profile of participants in Orange Farm 20 The CWP increases mutual assistance 39 Gender and the Orange Farm CWP 20 during times of bereavement Work done by the CWP in Orange Farm 23 Possible impact of the CWP on violence 40 in Orange Farm Vegetable gardening project 23 Victim Empowerment Programme’s 40 CWP support to the CoJ food 23 impact on violence gardening project Gateway project’s impact on violence 41 Home-based care project 23 Early Childhood Development (ECD) 24 Early childhood programme’s impact on 41 Adult education project 25 violence Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP) 26 Support to NGO violence prevention 41 and domestic violence projects Anti-crime and substance abuse 27 Other impacts of the CWP in Orange Farm 41 campaigns Concluding reflections 43 Facilitating parent–teenage dialogues 31 CWP’s role in developing participants and 33 References assisting them to access other opportunities 1 Abbreviations and acronyms ANC African National Congress APF Anti-Privatisation Forum CoJ City of Johannesburg CWP Community Work Programme DA Democratic Alliance EFF Economic Freedom Fighters ESP Extended Social Package LIA Local implementing agent NGO Non-governmental organisation PCO Parliamentary Constituency Office RC Reference Committee SANCA South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence VEP Victim Empowerment Programme YBRA Youth in Business and Research Agency 2 Introduction South Africa’s unemployment is on the increase, time work, spread over two days a week throughout especially among young people between the ages of the year, while the EPWP offers 100 days of work 23 and 35.1 Currently, unemployment is estimated over a period of three to four months on a full-time to be at 25%.2 As a result of the high rate of basis. Moreover, the CWP differs from the EPWP unemployment, various government programmes because it is community-based and -oriented, while were implemented for skills development and to EPWP involves infrastructural development projects create work opportunities. The Expanded Public such as building roads and bridges. The work done Works Programme (EPWP) was launched as a through CWP is decided through a participatory poverty-alleviation strategy by providing temporary process that identifies ‘useful work’ that the employment through involvement in infrastructural community feels will contribute to the public good and technical projects such as building roads, and improve the community’s quality of life, while dams, sewerage systems, storm water drains and EPWP projects are state-driven. bridges.3 EPWP participants were provided with 100 days of full-time work within major infrastructural Some studies have been conducted to assess and projects run by various government departments, evaluate the effectiveness of the CWP in alleviating mainly the Department of Public Works. The main poverty and unemployment in communities.6 aim of the EPWP was to provide participants with However, the focus of the current research project technical skills and training in the hope that they is on the impact of the CWP in facilitating and would become permanently employed once they had promoting social and civic cohesion, which in turn completed their involvement in the EPWP.4 may lead to a reduction of violence in communities. A major criticism levelled against the EPWP is It is against this backdrop that a study was that it provides too few days of work for people conducted in Orange Farm, a black township to learn skills that will equip them for permanent situated in the south of Johannesburg, where the formal employment (see Thokozani Nzimakwe for a CWP was started in 2010. detailed discussion of EPWP and its limitations).5 Another major criticism is that the EPWP projects The report discusses background information about are too labour intensive and state-driven rather than the community of Orange Farm, methods of data community-driven and -oriented. collection, participants interviewed and key findings, including the history of CWP, the CWP projects In response to these criticisms of the EPWP, the undertaken and the impact of the CWP in promoting Community Work Programme (CWP) began as a pilot social and civic cohesion and reducing urban project in 2007. The CWP offers 100 days of part- violence. 1 Statistics South Africa, ‘Work and Labour Force,’ http://beta2.statssa.gov.za/?page_id=737&id=1 (accessed 20 June 2015). 2 Ibid. It is important to note that these figures are contested by some statisticians. They should be used and interpreted with care. 3 Thokozani I. Nzimakwe, ‘Addressing Unemployment and Poverty through Public Works Programmes in South Africa,’ International NGO Journal 3(12) (2008): 207–212. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Kate Philip, ‘The Transformative Potential of Public Employment Programmes,’ Occasional Paper Series No. 1/2013, Graduate School of Development Policy and Practice, Univer- sity of Cape Town, 2013. 3 Methodology The study was qualitative in nature, implying ‘an officials and the police (see Table 1 for a profile emphasis on the processes and meanings’ that of participants interviewed in this research people make out of their lived experiences.7 The project). In some cases, follow-up interviews were aim of the study was to explore how the CWP also conducted with certain participants. The participants reflect and talk about the impact of interviews were conducted over a period of eight CWP in fostering and promoting social cohesion months (March to October 2014). The researcher in Orange Farm. Qualitative research methods met the participants at the Skills Centre8 in allowed the researcher to study CWP in depth and Orange Farm, visited some in their offices, went detail. Individual interviews as well as focus group to work sites and also attended CWP meetings. interviews were conducted with CWP participants, Telephonic conversations were also held with some representatives of non-governmental organizations participants, especially when the researcher needed (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs), clarity about issues during the report-writing local councillors, social workers and community process. Apart from one interview that was done in leaders, as well as City of Johannesburg (CoJ) Lenasia all interviews were done in Orange Farm. Table 1: List of interviews Individual Or Focus Group Organization Position Gender Date Of Interview Personal interview Tebogo Home for Administrator F 22/5/2014 Disabled Children Personal interview Fundisa Facilitator F 18/04/2014 Personal interview Home of Hope Peer educator M 28/05/2014 Personal interview Home of Hope Manager F 28/05/2014 Personal interview World Vision South Administrator F 28/05/2014 Africa Personal interview CWP Participant F 28/05/2014 Focus group (8 Youth Desk Executive members M (all) 28/05/2014 participants) Personal interview with Youth in Business Chairperson M 20/04/2014 Orange Farm Orange and Research Agency Farm CWP senior (YBRA) representative 1 Personal interview with CWP CWP M 07/05/2014 Orange Farm Orange Farm