the team
Strategy & Tactics logo    

August 2004

A nation of givers?

Strategy & Tactics was commissioned by the Centre for Civil Society (CCS), National Development Agency (NDA) and SA Grantmakers Association (SAGA) to undertake a representative national sample survey to measure both attitudes to giving and giving behaviour itself. The survey is one component of a larger project focusing on resource mobilisation for poverty and development that covers state expenditure, overseas development assistance, corporate giving, as well as individual-level giving focusing on religious groups and poor communities.


Strategy & Tactics was commissioned by the Centre for Civil Society (CCS), National Development Agency (NDA) and SA Grantmakers Association (SAGA) to undertake a representative national sample survey to measure both attitudes to giving and giving behaviour itself. The survey is one component of a larger project focusing on resource mobilisation for poverty and development that covers state expenditure, overseas development assistance, corporate giving, as well as individual-level giving focusing on religious groups and poor communities.


‘Giving' can be a slippery notion, defined by the mind of the giver. For example, some people give money to car guards not because they believe their cars to be any safer, but as a way of helping poor people who are trying to help themselves – but they are in fact paying for a service. For these and other reasons, the survey design was a lengthy and complex process. First, a set of 15 focus groups were staged across the country in order to inform questionnaire design, and to reveal different understandings of what people give, why they do so, and to whom – as well as the reverse, namely what people do not give to and why. A full 100 respondent punched pilot study was important in helping finalise the survey instrument.

A random stratified survey sample was drawn by S&T. The sample was stratified by race and province at the first level, and then by area (rural/urban/etc.) at the second level. The sample frame comprised 3 000 respondents, yielding an error bar of 1.8%. The results are representative of all South Africans aged 18 and above, in all parts of the country, including formal and informal dwellings. Unlike many surveys, the project partners ensured that the rural component of the sample (commonly the most expensive for logistical reasons) was large and did not require heavy weighting (where a small number of respondents have to represent the views of a far larger community). Randomness was built into the selection of starting points and the selection of respondents. Three call-backs were undertaken to interview the selected respondent; if s/he was unavailable, the household was substituted.

A nation of givers

South Africa appears to be a nation of givers: in the month prior to being interviewed., over half of respondents (54%) gave money to charities or other causes, a third (31%) gave food or goods to charities or other causes, while slightly less than a fifth (17%) volunteered time for a charity or cause.

In addition to giving to formalised institutions or causes, slightly less than half of respondents told us they gave money and/or goods (45% respectively) not to formal charities but directly to the poor – street children, people begging on the street and so on.

Thinking about the last month, have you personally %

Given money to a charity or other cause?


Given goods, food or clothes to a charity or other cause?


Given time (i.e. volunteered) to a charity or other cause?


Given money o a beggar/street child/someone asking for help?


Given food, goods or time to a beggar/street child/someone asking for help? 45

Respondents appear to be more comfortable giving to formal structures than to the poor directly – if we measure this by the amounts given to formal structures rather than directly to the poor. That said, however, there are still very high levels of direct transactional giving to people in need in the form of cash and/or goods.

9/10 South Africans give

If we combine these different forms and methods of giving, we find that a massive 93% of respondents gave (time, money or goods, to a cause or individual) in the month before being interviewed. This is calculated by counting all respondents who gave money to a charity or gave goods to a charity or volunteered or gave money to the poor or gave goods to the poor. We deliberately cast the net as wide as possible: these figures include respondents who made monthly financial contributions to a charity as well as those (for example) who gave a sandwich or cold-drink to a street child begging at a traffic light.

Giving seems to be ingrained in respondents. Even among those scoring high on ‘alienation' variables, 92% gave in the month prior to being interviewed, rising to 94% among those with low levels of alienation. Similarly, we found that poor and non-poor respondents (measured using an adaptation of Statistics SA's household poverty measure) were equally likely to have given in the month prior to being interviewed. ‘Giving' is not the domain of the wealthy: it is part of everyday life for all South Africans, rich and poor alike.

How much do we give?

The three items that have been quantified are money given to a charity, cause or organisation; money given directly to the poor; and the amount of time given to a charity, cause or organisation (volunteering). The table below provides the mean or average across respondents (in the middle column) and the sum total mobilised (in the column on the right).

Item Mean Sum

Money given to a charity/cause/organisation


R80 781

Money given directly to the poor


R19 790

Time given to a charity/cause/organisation

11 hours

5 807 hours

Total money given (formal and informal)


R100 571

Charities and organisations received considerably more money than that given directly to the poor. Respondents who gave money to formal structures gave an average of R49 each in the month before being interviewed; taken together, these respondents gave a total of R80 781 to charities, causes and organisations. Respondents who gave to poor people (45% of the sample) tended to give substantially smaller amounts – an average of R14 each in the month before being interviewed – and gave just less than R20 000 to the poor.

Who gives?

Men tended to give more money than women: men (who gave) gave an average of R53 to charities and organisations, and an average of R15 to poor people asking for help. Women gave an average of R46 to charities and R14 to the poor. Racial differences also emerged: African respondents who gave money gave an average of R30 to charities and R11 to poor people; coloured respondents gave an average of R94 to charities and R15 to the poor; Indians gave an average of R85 to charities and R29 to the poor; and white respondents gave an average of R125 to charities and R123 to poor people asking for help.

It is notable that while white and Indian communities have commensurate levels of wealth, their giving behaviour differs markedly. Indian respondents were the most active givers; but where Indian respondents tended to give more to organisations than directly to the poor, their white counterparts gave almost equal amounts to organisations and directly to the poor.

In all, 77% of respondents told us they gave money (any amount) directly to charities, causes or organisations or to poor people directly. If we add up the amounts given to organisations and to the poor, we find that respondents who gave money, gave a total of R100 571 at an average of R44 per respondent who gave money.

As a nationally representative sample, we can extrapolate these findings to the population as a whole. South African citizens mobilise almost R930m in an average month for development and anti-poverty work. From one perspective, this is a massive amount of money. Seen in context, it amounts to 2.2% of the total monthly income for the working age population (as measured by Census 2001).

Volunteering 1

In all, 17% of respondents volunteered time in the month before being interviewed; during that month, they gave an average of 11 hours each, totalling nearly 6 000 hours.

Women volunteered slightly more time than men; African volunteers gave the most time, averaging 11 hours each in the month before being interviewed; they were followed by coloured respondents (10 hours), Indians (9 hours) and lastly whites (5 hours). It is important to note that the average amount of time volunteered is constant among youth and adults (between 10 and 11 hours) and only rises among those aged over 60 years of age (to an average of 12 hours). Poor respondents (23%) were more likely to have volunteered than non-poor (17%).

Volunteering, in South Africa, is not the preserve of the middle-class with time and resources at their disposal, which we also saw was true of other types of giving.

Provincial differences?

Means of money and time given by province

Provinces show very different giving behaviours. Respondents from the Eastern Cape – one of the poorest provinces in the country – show consistently high levels of giving both money and time. Their neighbours in the far wealthier Western Cape have the highest average levels of giving money (R88), but low levels of volunteering. The data shows the levels of giving that can be attained through hard work by non-profit organisations in the different provinces: the high levels of giving in the Eastern Cape indicate that provincial poverty is no hindrance to giving; it may be an incentive, given its inescapability.

People also give to non-household family members. This was most common in Eastern Cape and Limpopo, two of the poorest provinces in the country. It was least common in the Western Cape and Mpumalanga. Women (58%) were more likely than men (53%) to give money, goods or other items to non-household family members, although when men did so they were more likely to give money (75%) than women (66%). On other items, such as food and drink, clothing, medical supplies and so on, women predominated. Helping non-household family members differs considerably by race. African (59%) and Indian (58%) respondents were considerably more likely to do so than coloured (42%) or white (39%) respondents. It was also influenced by religion, with two-thirds (64%) of non-Christians helping non-family members, dipping slightly among Christians, while atheists were less (49%) rather than more likely (50%) to do so.

The table below summarises all forms of giving by province.

  W Cape E Cape Mpum KZN N Cape Limpopo Free State N West Gauteng
% gave money
to organisation
75 71 64 60 56 49 47 42 36
% gave goods
to organisation
19 59 19 29 27 35 26 17 30
% volunteered 15 33 5 17 17 26 14 8 13
% gave money to poor 42 55 32 36 34 48 63 46 51
% gave goods
to poor
66 53 21 25 27 49 68 44 55
% gave to non-hh family members 34 75 38 44 52 73 57 47 64
Giving to non-household family members by province

Most deserving causes?

The most deserving causes, according to respondents, are dominated by three categories: those associated with children or youth (22%), followed by HIV/AIDS (21%) and ‘the poor' (20%). These three are followed by a set of smaller categories, including people living with disabilities (8%) and the elderly (5%). We asked respondents what they thought was “the most deserving cause that you would support if you could?” (emphasis in questionnaire). This was an open-ended question where respondents could give any answer they wished; answers were later categorised and given numeric codes. It was phrased so as to allow all respondents to tell us what they would support regardless of whether or not they currently either do so or are in a position to do so.

‘What do you think is the most deserving cause, that you would support if you could?'

The high scores for children and youth, HIV/AIDS and poverty suggest that respondents have a progressive and pro-poor understanding of South Africa and societal priorities.

Local or international?

South Africans are highly motivated to give to local causes, but significantly less so to international ones. Less than one in ten respondents (8%) told us they had ever given money specifically to international causes. We also tested respondents' attitudes to giving to local and international causes. The majority (65%) of respondents regard domestic causes as more deserving than international causes, while a fifth (20%) regard local and international as equally deserving. A further one in ten (9%) had no response, while a tiny 4% told us international causes were more deserving than local causes.

Why do we give?

Helping the poor is widely regarded as an important part of building the new South Africa – 93% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement – which may seem self-evident to some, but indicates the broad popular support for pro-poor policies and programmes. This is not mere altruism: there is an apocalyptic edge to the issue, indicated by the 57% of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that “if we do not help the poor now we might lose everything later”; just a quarter (26%) rejected the notion. Helping the poor is both a moral act and (for some) linked to self-preservation.

Helping the poor is widely regarded as the responsibility of citizens, not (just) government. Almost two-thirds of respondents (61%) disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement: “It is government's responsibility to help the poor, not mine”. A quarter (24%) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the notion that helping the poor was the sole responsibility of government. Intriguingly, agreement was highest among Indian respondents (at 38%), who also showed the highest levels of giving. Among other race groups, agreement with the statement ranged from 29% of whites and coloureds to 23% of Africans.

Attitudes to giving (all respondents, ‘neutral' not shown)

Giving to make SA a better place?

Respondents from the Western Cape were least likely to agree (66% did so) that they give to make the country a better place; at the other extreme, 95% of Free State respondents and 93% of Eastern Cape respondents agreed or strongly agreed. The provincial differences may deserve further detailed research.

“I give to make the country a better place” % agree
Western Cape 66
Limpopo 70
North West 73
Northern Cape 76
KwaZulu-Natal 77
Gauteng 81
Mpumalanga 82
Eastern Cape 93
Free State 95
Agreement with Likert item (by province)

Help the poor because...?

We asked respondents a pointed question about helping the poor, reflecting its importance to the project as a whole. Respondents had to complete the following sentence: “Help the poor because…” This was an open-ended question; answers are set out below.

“Help the poor because...” (all respondents)

For two-thirds (68%) of respondents, giving to the poor is motivated by feelings of human solidarity – we should give because the poor have nothing, or are suffering, or are in need, or deserve something from us. For others, it seems to be more of a rational decision to try and help tackle poverty (10%). Almost one in ten respondents answered the question in religious terms, with 3% telling us they gave because their God required it of them and 6% because by giving they will be blessed.

Charity vs. change?

A third (34%) of respondents told us they give to people in immediate need, and a fifth (21%) that both short-term need and long-term solutions deserve their support. The data suggest that both charity and development have a support base to draw on. Analysed across the 9 provinces, some interesting patterns emerge.


E Cape




Free State
















N Cape












W Cape




Charity, change or both? (by province)

If we analyse attitudes to giving across the three socio-economic status categories we find a third (33%) of respondents in the ‘low' socio-economic status category supported charity but 47% supported change, with a fifth (19%) supporting both. This was similar in the middle category, with 34% supporting charity, 48% change, and 19% both. When we look at those in the high socio-economic status category, we find 28% supporting both charity and change; while charity and change were supported by 36% respectively of respondents in the category. The poorer the respondent, the more likely they are to support causes that seek to change rather than ameliorate.

Overall, the dominant view remains clear: people prefer giving to causes that seek longer-term solutions to our problems than short-term charitable interventions, although a significant proportion see the value of the latter. There seems to be a solid support base for a wide range of organisations and campaigns, from social movements through to more traditional charities. This is a positive finding for the non-profit sector as a whole, particularly organisations that use advocacy, lobbying and local organisational work alongside developmental work.

Using the data

A key goal of the survey was to make the data available for use in the non-profit sector. We have prepared sets of tables, aimed at allowing non-profits to develop a targeting strategy for deepening their domestic support base, be it giving in any form or specifically targeting money, goods or time. The tables in two forms: firstly, the statistical tables provide a probability matrix which reveal the probability of giving across a range of demographic variables: province, dwelling/area, sex, race, education level, socio-economic status, age and so on. This is immediately followed by a second table that specifies which of these groups can be considered a potential target group and which not. A fairly simple algorithm is used: (a) if the level of giving across the different groups for a particular measure is statistically significant (p<0.05) and (b) respondents in any given group are more likely to give than the average then we assume this group to be a target group, and the second table specifies which groups are and are not targets.

The data will be made available, in user-friendly format, on the CCS, SAGA and NDA websites, allowing organisations or individuals to run the data according to their specific needs.


1 ‘Volunteer' appears throughout this report, reflecting the language of focus group participants which was translated into survey design. In South Africa, many unemployed people describe themselves as volunteers because they are not remunerated for work they do.

Giving' is not the domain of the wealthy: it is part of everyday life for all South Africans, rich and poor alike.


A decade of democracy: South Africa in review — Part two Social movements

A decade of democracy: South Africa in review — Part two Social movements imageDavid Everatt reviews the 10 years since the democratic general election of 1994. Part 3 of this 4 part series.

The situation has been blurred rather than clarified by over-use of the term ‘social movement' among academics, activists and journalists. Social movements are commonly organisations of the poor that move beyond a single-issue focus to take on a broader political agenda. In the absence of robust parliamentary opposition, however, the term ‘social movement' is often invoked by those seeking some form of resistance to the state and/or ruling party. Social movements are thus often expected to provide the opposition that the parliamentary system has failed to offer.

The Mail & Guardian newspaper ran a two-page feature entitled: “Social movements:” ‘ultra-left' or global citizens?” 1 The article sought to capture both the oppositional spirit of social movements and also to probe the reasons for government's wariness of them. However, the article offered no distinction between non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with a popular base, or small research units. Anyone with a laptop and a letterhead, it seemed, could become a social movement. The article ignored two key issues, however. Firstly, the most successful social movement is commonly taken to be the Treatment Action Campaign, which has developed a large membership as well as enjoying a high profile and employing highly successful strategies that combine mobilisation with litigation. But alongside TAC is Mapogo a Mathamaga, popular among black and white South Africans for the ‘instant justice' it metes out to those it finds transgressing the law. So too is PAGAD, the Western Cape movement that began as a community response to gangs and drugs but which rapidly got caught up in precisely the problems it was meant to eradicate.

Social movements must be seen without the mythology that overlays their work, generated by academics and journalists looking for something new and exciting to write about. They are not membership-based and thus not necessarily comparable to NGOs; social movements tend to mobilise by issue, responding to mood changes, and can rise and fall at speed. It is perhaps surprising that we do not have more in place: issues such as electricity, land and so on are all points where social pressure is mounting and such movements may emerge. But it should also be recalled that in the decade since democracy, there has been an extremely high cross-over from civil society into government, and (recently) back again. While the TAC and government have had a very public stand-off, relations in other sectors have a very different flavour.

More worryingly, however, is the fact that a number of relatively well-known social movements, including the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee and Anti-Privatisation Forum seem to regard themselves as outside of what they regard as the illegitimate South African state. Given the fact that South Africans managed to walk away from the precipice of collapse in 1994, it is important to engage with and challenge this tendency to disregard the Constitution.

The non-profit sector more broadly – comprising NGOs and community based organisations (CBOs) – appears to be in relatively good health, although this is more true of the latter than the former. The Non Profit Organisations Act, which came into force in 1998, sets out the following definitional criteria:

  • Organised;
  • Private;
  • Self-governing;
  • Non-profit distributing; and
  • Voluntary.

The SA non-profit sector: key findings

The recent non-profit survey used these criteria to identify non-profit organisations throughout South Africa. Some flexibility was required in order to include the range of CBOs including co-operatives, stokvels (saving clubs), burial societies and others. Within the methodological limitations of the study, Swilling and Russell report that there are 98 920 non-profit organisations (NPOs) in South Africa, together employing 178 370 full-time equivalents or 54% of the total number of people employed in the sector. 2 According to the study, 53% of all South African non-profit organisations can be classified as less formalised voluntary associations (i.e. not formally structured as Section 21 companies, trusts and so on). The majority of these organisations can be found in poorer communities. They are also therefore likely partners for donors that prefer to work at grass-roots level, with implications in terms of contracting, capacity and so on.

Other key findings of the study include:

  • South Africa has a larger non-profit sector than all but a handful of developed countries. There are
    98 920 NPOs across all sectors. The largest sectors are culture and recreation (20 587), social services (22 755) and development and housing (20 382).
  • Civic advocacy and environment may appear small but are comparatively large. Issue-based and value-driven organisations in the environment and civic/advocacy sectors are significant, including civil rights organisations (5% of the non-profit workforce) and political parties (14%).
  • The majority (53%) of NPOs are less formalised CBOs concentrated in poorer communities.
  • NPOs are stable rather than transient organisations with an average existence of 19 years.
  • Women and black people play a leading role in the NPO sector. In contrast to the gender profile of the public sector and the gender and race profile of the private sector, 59% of the managerial level of all NPOs surveyed were women and 73% of managers were black.
  • The non-profit sector is a major economic force and is larger than some formal economic sectors. The total operating expenditure of all South Africa's non-profits was R9,3 billion in 1998/1999, or 1.2% of the 1998 GDP. It is a major employer – there are 645 316 full-time equivalent staff employed by the non-profit sector, which is equivalent to 9% of the formal non-agricultural workforce or 7.6% of the total non-agricultural workforce.
  • The non-profit sector in South Africa mobilises a substantial number of volunteers. Nearly 1.5 million volunteers actively contributed their time and energy to South African NPOs in 1998, well above the international average.

This points to a deeper issue, namely the inequalities that divide larger, well-resourced NGOs from smaller and poorer CBOs, despite the fact that the latter are most commonly located in and directly serve the poorest communities in South Africa. Supporting such CBOs can directly benefit target communities – particularly when targeting vulnerable groups such as HIV and AIDS orphans – but CBOs may also lack management and administrative capacity and require considerable support in this regard. Finally, a key finding of the non-profit study was that the sector is a R9.3 bn industry that contributed 1.2% to the Gross Domestic Product in 1998. 3 The sector is larger (measured by size of workforce) than many formal sectors.

South Africa continues to enjoy a rich and vibrant non-profit sector. The non-profit survey results contradict some analysts who had previously made gloomy predictions about the sector's imminent demise. It is a major economic force, not a rag-tag collection of unreconstructed activists, and needs to considerably improve its levels of internal coherence so as to flex its muscle as required.

Constitutional democracy and socio-economic rights

The use of rights-based approaches is increasingly popular in South Africa. The Constitution provides a framework which comprises a set of rights to which people are entitled and which the state must deliver – not necessarily immediately, but certainly over time. The rights-based approach uses the Constitution so that the right sets the standard for government delivery, and rights become the fulcrum for struggle. People can claim as a right social assistance, for example, but also have to negotiate with the state as to the time and method of delivery. The rights-based approach requires that people engage with the state over how to get their social entitlements, but not whether or not they will get those entitlements.

Socio-economic rights provide a critical point where conservative elements in the ANC clash directly with social movements as well as NGO and CBO activists using rights-based strategies. Government has suffered a series of setbacks in the Constitutional Court, notably regarding provision of housing for the poor (in the Grootboom case) and provision of anti-retroviral therapy (in a case brought by the TAC).

There are contending pressures within the ruling party, where some are increasingly frustrated by the Constitutional Court. It will be important to closely monitor who replaces the current judges in the Constitutional Court and how they are selected. The current leaders of the ANC drafted the Constitution and have a deep emotional bond with it – but this may not be true of their successors. Already some in the upper end of the ANC hierarchy have hit out at the Constitutional Court and its judges. Dumisani Makhaye, an outspoken ANC MP from KwaZulu-Natal who seems to ride point for Mbeki, recently accused “elements from the SA judiciary” of thinking “they are the only ones that are unaccountable to anybody”; and went on to accuse them of supporting white judges in Zimbabwe “who think they are above the law”. 4 Makhaye's apparently thoughtless criticism reflects the view that the elected government's agenda is being subverted by an un-elected judiciary. While this may be a partly understandable reaction, it fails to reflect the fact that a new South African jurisprudence is emerging, as the judiciary tests and locates the boundaries of its own influence, in precisely the same manner as the legislature is finding its limits.

Socio-economic rights are an area where civil society enters the picture and can play an important role in identifying key issues, producing test cases, and mobilising around them. The table on the following page summarises delivery and shortfalls in key socio-economic areas.


1 Mail & Guardian January 31 to February 6 2003.

2 Swilling M and Russell B (2002) The size and scope of the Non-profit sector in South Africa. (University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg)

3 Swilling and Russell (2002) The size and scope op cit., p. 20.

4 “SA's judges taken to task on Zimbabwe” in Business Day March 6 2003.

Outstanding Challenges
Socio-economic right
Outstanding challenges
Education, including basic education (and adult basic education) and further education

• 29% of adult population is functionally illiterate

• 4 407 schools are in poor or very poor condition

• 49% of schools have a shortage of classrooms

• Significant variations in teacher:pupil ratio

• Only 80% of population of school-going age is in school

• Only 40% of education budget went to poorest half of the population

• Failure to spend R110 m for materials and schools

Food, including basic nutrition

• Insufficient coverage of school feeding projects

• Failure to spend R240 m of primary school nutrition scheme at provincial level between 1997-1999

• 14 million people have no food security

• 2.5 million people are malnourished

• Only Gauteng and Northern Cape had food security projects

Health care (including reproductive health)


• Estimated shortfall of almost 800 clinics

• Gross disparities between provinces & between private/public facilities

• Only 24% of community service doctors are placed in rural facilities

• Health clinics, especially in rural areas, are understaffed and lack basic medicines

• In 2000, DoH failed to spend 40% of its HIV and AIDS budget and cut 43% of its funding for AIDS service organisations

Housing*, including protection against eviction and demolition


• Housing backlog in 2000 estimated at 3-4 million units

• Between 1995-1999 there has been an absolute increase of 653 000 informal dwellings, of which 97% are in urban areas

• Significant decrease in budget allocation: 1.83% of total budget in 1998/9

• 50% of government subsidies went to non-physical inputs & consultancy fees

• 70% of houses built between 1994 and1999 are considered sub-standard, i.e. too small or poorly constructed

Social security, including social assistance



• Administrative difficulties with grant system

• Large gap in social security coverage: excludes children over 7 years old and adults up to pensionable age living in poverty

• Larger number of beneficiaries than planned for

• If current system were implemented effectively, 30-40% of poor households would not get social assistance

• In 1998/9 social assistance (poverty alleviation programmes) amounted to only 4% of DoSS budget

• Lack of financial planning and expenditure: only 0.7% of anti-poverty budget of R204 m was used in 1998/9 – has led to a decrease of 75% in budget allocation to poverty alleviation


• Over 80% of rural households do not have access to piped water

• Inability to pay for water costs limits access – e.g. between 1995-1999, 72 000 households in rural areas have lost access to flush toilets or chemical toilets

Source: Pieterse E and van Donk M (2002). ‘Incomplete Ruptures. The political economy of realising socio-economic rights in South Africa ', paper prepared for CLC Colloquium: Realising socio-economic rights in SA: Progress and Challenges.

Part Four which will be published in the next newsletter will be the final installment of the extract from the book.


Targeting poverty in Gauteng

Targeting poverty in Gauteng imageIn 2003, the Gauteng Provincial Executive Council noted the need for appropriate provincial data collection to assist in identifying poverty pockets in Gauteng as well as in the proper allocation of resources for poverty alleviation projects. As part of the Integrated Quality Social Services Strategy, it was agreed that the Office of the Premier should assist in the gathering of improved poverty information.


In 2003, the Gauteng Provincial Executive Council noted the need for appropriate provincial data collection to assist in identifying poverty pockets in Gauteng as well as in the proper allocation of resources for poverty alleviation projects. As part of the Integrated Quality Social Services Strategy, it was agreed that the Office of the Premier should assist in the gathering of improved poverty information.

Strategy and Tactics were commissioned to assist the Office of the Premier in developing a targeting strategy for the province. (1) To profile poverty in the province, data was taken from the 1996 Census and those departments – namely, Health and Social Services – that had appropriate information.

The 2003 Report recommended that the strategy be updated when the 2001 Census data became available. Now that the data are available, the recently established Gauteng Intersectoral Development Unit commissioned Strategy & Tactics to update the strategy.

In addition to updating the strategy with the 2001 Census data, the exercise also profiled poverty within each of the metropolitan councils, as this was not possible with the 1996 Census data.

Defining poverty

To profile poverty in each of the municipalities, the following twelve indicators, and their corresponding definitions, were used:

Female-headed households Proportion of households headed by women
Social security Proportion of population receiving a social security grant
Illiteracy Proportion of population (15+) who have not completed Std 5/Grade 7
Rate of unemployment Proportion of the economically available population who are unemployed
Household income (2) Proportion of households with no annual income
Crowding Proportion of households sharing a room with at least one other household
Dwelling type Proportion of households classified informal or traditional
Sanitation Proportion of households who do not have a flush or chemical toilet
Water Proportion of households who have no tap water inside dwelling or on site
Electricity Proportion of households who do not have electricity for lighting purposes
Refuse removal Proportion of households whose refuse is not removed by local authority
Malnutrition Proportion of children under 5 visiting provincial or local authority clinics who are severely malnourished


(1) See Jennings R, Ntsime M & Everatt D (2003) A poverty targeting strategy for Gauteng.

(2) This has changed from the previous definition as the categories used in the 2001 Census do not enable direct comparison with the 1996 Census.



UNRISD will publish S&T monograph

The United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) has accepted for publication as a monograph, the report prepared by David Everatt , Graeme Gotz and Ross Jennings which was a Habitat +5 overview of partnerships between local government and the poor in Soweto and the Johannesburg inner-city.

Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP) evaluation

S&T has just completed an evaluation of Phase 1 of the Integrated Sustainable Rural Development Programme (ISRDP), which will be written up in our next edition of Phatlalatsa.

S&T to conduct an evalution of SAUVCA's Higher Education Leadership and Management Programme (HELM)

S&T have just been commissioned by SAUVCA to conduct an evalution of their Higher Education Leadership and Management Programme (HELM). The HELM programme has been operating for the past 3 years and is aimed at providing support to senior managers at all of the higher education institutions in South Africa .

Moagi facilitating workshops in the Limpopo Province

Moagi has recently been very involved in conducting Strategic Planning workshops in the Limpopo Province . First he was requested by the Independent Development Trust (IDT), to facilitate a workshop for HOD Strategic Planning in the province. The 3-day workshop was held at the Mabalengwe Nature Reserve: Bela-Bela; Limpopo .

The Department of Finance and Economic Development in Limpopo then asked him to facilitate a 2-day strategic planning workshop. The workshop was again held at Bela-Bela, but this time at the Elephant Springs Hotel. The purpose of this workshop was to review both strategic and operation plans within Treasury, identify gaps and move towards more integration and synergy.

Matthew conducting Information Sessions on Service Standards

Matthew is currently conducting Information Sessions on Service Standards in all 9 provinces as part of S&T's ‘Evaluation of Service Standards' across approximately 130 national and provincial departments. The study is being conducted on behalf of the Public Services Commission, with support from GTZ. The information sessions will define service standards, identify the key components of service standards and provide examples of quality service standards.

David a panellist at ‘The people shall govern'

David recently participated as a panellist at an Idasa symposium entitled ‘The people shall govern' which brought together the editors of all the 10 Year Reviews published thus far. Other panel members included Goolam Aboobaker from the Office of the Presidency; Edgar Pieterse & Frank Meintjies; Roger Southall & John Daniels of the HSRC; and Richard Calland from Idasa.

[top] [to newsletters] [Previous page]
the team