Violence against women is devastatingly widespread in South Africa, but the government is failing to put its money where its mouth is in combating the problem.
Non-profit organisations (NPOs) assisting women who are the targets of gender-based violence receive “inadequate” funding from government departments, according to research findings to be released next week by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) in Johannesburg.
CSVR gender researchers Zohra Khan and Lisa Vetten are the authors of the new study, the first of its kind in South Africa, entitled “We’re Doing Their Work for Them”: An Investigation into Government Support to Non-Profit Organisations Providing Services to Women Experiencing Gender Violence.
The state’s approach to the problem sidelines prevention in favour of amelioration — through new laws, stiffer sentences and opposition to bail applications.
“South Africa is notorious for its rape figures, leading us to be described as the rape capital of the world. The situation is little better in relation to domestic violence, with as many as 50% of women in some parts of the country experiencing abuse in their relationships,” the study observes.
Khan and Vetten identified 196 NPOs that provide support to girls and women aged 15 years and older experiencing forms of gender violence including rape, domestic violence and sexual harassment. The NPOs’ services include counselling, legal assistance, shelter and other direct assistance to women such as income-generation projects and job skills training.
Only 40% of the 141 NPOs that responded to the researchers’ questionnaires secured financial support from the government between January 1 2000 and May 1 last year (the period under scrutiny in the study). Slightly more, 44%, received in-kind support such as the use of government premises (hospitals, clinics, courts and police stations) or the waiving of electricity and water charges.
In the same period, the government disbursed about R11-million to these organisations, with NPOs in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal receiving the highest proportion (63%), and Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape the least (2%). More than half of the government grants were less than R100 000 each, and most funding went towards counselling services. Provincial departments of social development, followed by departments of health, provided most of the funding.
Organisations appeared willing to work in partnership with the state, the study found.
“Indeed, they saw the NPO sector as the delivery arm of the state. Yet organisations are clearly not receiving adequate state financing to shoulder the state’s responsibilities and, in some instances, were actually subsidising the state.”
In one case, a Western Cape NPO offering counselling, training and legal support assisted 15142 mainly women applicants to obtain court protection orders between April 2000 and February last year. This cost the NPO R373 364 — a “grant” to the Western Cape government that is almost half the total amount the study found the government disbursed in the province as a whole.
Inadequate state financing does not imply “complete unwillingness” on the part of the government to assist NPOs in the field of violence against women, Khan and Vetten suggest.
“Rather, the bureaucratic hurdles imposed, as well as the lack of information about funding and tendering processes, significantly hamper organisations’ attempts to obtain funding from the state.”
The study provides detailed case studies of four NPOs to compare and contrast their experiences of applying for government funding. Their annual operating budgets range from R160 000 to R2-million. Two are located in rural areas where there are few other services, “and have had to increase their range of activities in response to need”, the study says.
The four organisations provided some form of counselling to about 15600 women, men and children (though not all of this was in relation to gender violence) during 2000/ 2001. Two of the organisations received grants totalling R169 000 from provincial government, and two received none.
“However, the organisations’ services consist of considerably more than counselling and they help many more people than those needing counselling alone,” the study says.
None of the four had successfully tendered for government work. One remarked on the “foreignness and tediousness” of tendering procedures; another that it had “neither the time nor the personpower to complete tender applications”.
In applying for funds, one organisation found the Department of Social Development friendly and cooperative, but it and another NPO describe the paperwork as time-consuming and complicated. Funding can take six months to materialise, and “there is a general lack of communication on the part of the government”.
Khan and Vetten make several recommendations to government departments and to NPOs. The government should share information and assist NPOs in dealing with bureaucracy. It should also tender out more services — “particularly … where organisations are subsidising government departments”.
NPOs should proactively engage with the government to find out about funding opportunities, and build capacity in writing business plans and tenders. They should also build and strengthen partnerships among themselves, and monitor and assess government departments’ progress in disbursing funds.