Journal of Social Development in Africa (1994), 9,1,41-50 
Effective Intervention Roles of South 
African Social Workers in an 
Appropriate, Relevant and Progressive 
Social Welfare Model 
ANN NTEBE* 
ABSTRACT 
This article examines the social welfare policy under apartheid in South Africa 
where differential access to social welfare services was enshrined as part of the 
racially segregated society. It explores proposals for a social welfare model that 
will be appropriate to the South African social welfare setting. The author suggests 
that social welfare is now in a process of transition and as evidence summarises 
conclusions and proposals of the "progressive social work fraternity". These not 
only criticise the status quo, but seek positive and affirmative action in the direction 
of citizen participation and social development The author concludes by suggesting 
an alternative radical paradigm which questions the traditional residual modes 
of intervention, and instead suggests a committed advocab've position for social 
workers in the new South Africa, which encourages empowerment and self-help 
initiatives. 
Introduction 
There is an urgent need to develop a relevant and acceptable social welfare model 
in South Africa, which would allow social workers to engage in effective and appropriate 
professional intervention. In this context the present roles of social 
workers are scrutinised, with the express purpose of evolving and presenting more 
effective roles that would help to meet the challenges facing the South African 
social work fraternity. 
The article should not be seen in isolation to the discussions that have taken 
place in various social work conferences in South Africa and elsewhere since 1987. 
Progressive social workers of various persuasions have begun to question their 
own roles in human service delivery. The conferences at the University of the 
Western Cape "Social Welfare at the Watershed", 1987 (1); University of the 
Witwatersrand 'Towards a Democratic Welfare System - Options and Strategies", 
1989 (2); Maputo "Health and Welfare in Transition", 1990 (3); and the University 
• Assistant Lecturer, School of Social Work, University of Cape Town, and Chairperson 
of Social Workers' Forum, Cape Town.
42 AnnNtebe 
of theWestem Cape "Peoples' Health and Social Services", 1991 (4) along with 
numerous other seminars, workshops, discussions, protest pickets, etc, have 
clearly indicated that social workers, especially those within the progressive 
fraternity, are in search of a unitary, non-racist, democratic welfare system. 
With the unbanning of political organisations in February 1990 by President 
de Klerk, and a Transitional Executive Council in place in preparation for the real 
transfer of power, especially after the 27th April 1994 elections, progressive 
organisations in South Africa are faced with the urgent need now to give substance 
to the many demands and aspirations that have been expressed through the years 
of apartheid domination. 
Social Welfare Models: South African Proposals 
The Reality 
Social workers are constantly aware of the limited resources with which they have 
to service a society affected by mass poverty, low economic growth and rising 
employment Limited personnel is one big concern. By 1st September 1992, according 
to the South African Council for Social Work (1992) there were 7,769 
registered social workers servicing a population of 37,532,000 (Race Relations 
1989/90). With an annual increase in population of 800,000, social workers are 
outweighed by the hundreds of thousands of individuals and families in needy and 
deprived communities (Schrire, 1990). 
The goals set by the social welfare fraternity are hardly achievable unless the 
ruling structures of the country develop the political will to uproot poverty and 
promote healthy living and working conditions for all its citizens. It is true that the 
economic policy makers in South Africa often view social welfare with scepticism 
as it is regarded as a factor of the economy which uses funds but does not generate 
funds through productive activities. This is in line with the views of the statement 
of former State President, President Botha, in 1988 at a Nationalist Party Congress, 
when he warned that the state was more likely to reduce social investment 
expenditure in the future than increase it (Wilson and Ramphele, 1989). 
Apartheid Social Welfare Policy 
When the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948, the apartheid policy was 
enforced through a wide range of legislation, the Population Registration Act of 
1950 being one of its cornerstones. This Act classified the population into four 
racial categories which paved the way for racial differential access to social welfare 
services and social benefits. Different state departments became responsible for
Effective Intervention Roles of Social Workers 43 
social welfare provision to the different population groups. These departments are 
controlled by the tri-cameral government which is racially divided, eg House of 
Representatives of the coloured population, House of Delegates for the Indian 
population, House of Assembly for the White population; and for the Black 
population, Regional Services Councils, local community councils and the provincial 
administrations. Welfare resources are unequally allocated to the different 
racial groups, with Whites benefiting disproportionately (Vogelman, 1988; Patel, 
1992). 
Since 1990 the State has been trying to implement parity in the social pensions 
to the elderly, but presently there still remains a large disparity in the amounts paid. 
Black pensioners since 1989 receive their pension on a monthly basis whereas 
previously it was paid bimonthly. 
To indicate the seriousness of the situation of no parity, the Chief Director of 
Welfare Services, Dr Wallace Stevens, in May 1989 stated that parity in pension 
payments would cost the government an additional R5 billion (ed note: R3,4 = 
US$1 (1994 rates}) and was hardly likely under the present circumstances (Race 
Relations, 1989/1990: lxiv). 
Some progress was forthcoming in the 1992/1993 Budget. The then Minister 
of Finance, Mr Barend du Plessis, announced an increase and closing of the gap 
between pensions for different racial groups, but the disparity was not eliminated. 
The evidence (of this gap) is indicated by the following: 
Africans receive R253 per month 
Asians and Coloureds receive R318 per month 
Whites receive R345 per month 
(People's Express, 1992: 3). 
The author agrees with Jinabhai (1986:3) that the South African social welfare 
policy rests on the residual welfare model which emphasises individualism and 
individual pathology, the principle elements being: 
"... that every citizen is responsible for his own welfare antisocial adjustment, 
that of his family and of the community. Only where the citizen fails 
to sustain his independence in these regards, does the state come to his 
assistance in co-operation with private effort". 
The principle of privatisation in social welfare is also central in this statement, 
which implies limited state responsibility for social services and expecting the 
business sector to play a major role in the provision of finance for welfare.
44 AnnNtebe 
Apartheid Social Welfare in Transition: Alternate Models 
Dismantling the institutions of apartheid and dealing with their consequences 
cannot be achieved in a short period. We have experienced in our country a surge 
of protests of all sorts against the bastions of oppression. The social welfare 
fraternity has also positioned itself amongst the Mass Democratic forces in the 
struggle against apartheid welfare. 
Evidence of this is that in October 1989 the Social Workers' Forum staged a 
protest picket in Cape Town calling for a single welfare department, and a 
memorandum was handed to the office of the Minister of National Health and 
Population Development, Dr Rina Venter. This was not an isolated event, but was 
reinforced by the protest action of the Co-ordinating Committee against Welfare 
Policy, Johannesburg, and the Welfare Policy Committee in Durban (Social 
Workers Forum, 1989). 
It is interesting that in October 1992 social workers of the Cape Mental Health 
Society, along with the Organisation for the Physically Disabled of South Africa 
had also held a protest picket and march to the offices of the Cape Provincial Administration 
for racial parity, efficient welfare administration of grants for parents 
of disabled children and, amongst others, adequate devices for the disabled (Argus, 
1992). 
The aforementioned are just some of the actions that the social welfare fraternity 
have involved themselves in. If social workers are are to be seen as relevant and 
supportive, then these are some of the activities that consumers of welfare would 
want to see them involved in. 
At this pointthe proposals of certain South African social workers who to a great 
extent represent the views of the progressive social welfare fraternity are presented. 
Louw (1990) in his proposition for a social welfare model in a non-racial, 
democratic, unitary South Africa, sums up the proposals of Patel (1989) and 
Letsebe and Loffel (1990). He notes that pertinent issues and principles would be 
concerned with the following: 
1. Social welfare services must be organised on a non-racial basis. 
2. A single state department of social welfare services serving all South African 
citizens should be created. 
3. The partnership of welfare service responsibilities by the State and the private, 
voluntary welfare sector needs to be clarified, services improved and deracialised, 
and community participation encouraged.
Effective Intervention Roles of Social Workers 45 
4. The dominant rehabilitative, psycho-social, pathological approach in theory 
and in practice should be re-considered. A variety of approaches, including the 
development approach, need to be strongly considered 
5. Length of social work training and professional expertise need to be reviewed 
in the context of the demands of the majority, and their unsatisfied needs 
require attention. 
6. Social welfare needs to be interpreted broadly - not just serving the casualties 
of society. Welfare should be interpreted as embracing human need in the form 
of food, shelter, employment, health, education and social security. 
A very important point that Patel (1989) highlights and which was proposed at the 
May 1989 Johannesburg Conference (5,) is the need for "...conscious efforts to 
begin the process of dismantling the old welfare order and laying the building 
blocks for the new". This point is again highlighted, but as a matter of progress, 
at the June 1991 Consultative Conference in Johannesburg (6). It was reported by 
some of the voluntary welfare organisations that the issue of racism in their 
organisations was now being addressed by staff members; efforts are being made 
to desegregate management structures which have been dominated by White, 
middle-class do-gooders; agencies traditionally serving Black clients are now 
reaching out to White communities, and racial inequalities in service delivery are 
being addressed in some agencies through strategic planning of future services 
(Patel, 1992). 
At the April 1990 Maputo Conference, Patel and De Beer (1990) clearly 
emphasised the principles of equity, appropriateness and participation needed in 
a new social welfare dispensation. At the same Conference Letsebe and Loffel 
(1990:17) supported the former and added the following very important principles: 
"... the family is a natural and fundamental unit of society, and government 
will ensure circumstances in which secure and fulfilling family life will be 
protected, and the needs of those who are disabled or in any way disadvantaged 
will be specifically addressed through affirmative action". 
It is clear that the social welfare fraternity is not only criticising the system but is 
prepared to seek and work at constructive alternatives. In this respect the author 
supports Moosa (1989:5) in reinforcing the aforementioned statement by noting 
that two distinct processes are inseparable: "... in the process of dismantling the 
evil system of apartheid and that of building the new democratic system".
46 AnnNtebe 
An Alternative Proposal 
The author wishes to endorse and support the proposals made by the abovementioned 
writers, as they are social welfare professionals with first-hand experience 
of the South African reality and who have consulted broadly. 
It is important, further, to note that the social welfare policy of a nation is not 
operative in isolation from the its dominant philosophy. Dixon (1981) makes an 
appropriate observation that the social objectives are influenced by the prevailing 
philosophy in a given society, which, in turn, are crucial determinants of the 
society's welfare policies and related administrative procedures. 
Thus, knowing the South African dominant philosophy of apartheid, which is 
within a broadly free market system, and the de-humanising consequences it has 
had on the majority of the population, the author strongly wishes to propose and 
advocate a radical paradigm or approach for an alternate social welfare policy and 
social work theory and practice. If the progressive social welfare fraternity is serious 
about contributing to radical social transformation in South Africa, rather 
than modifying the social system, then the radical approach would be the most 
effective strategy to engage. The challenge then to the social welfare fraternity is 
to radically transform the residual, fragmented, discriminatory, expensive and 
personal-oriented welfare policy, to one that is unitary, non-racial, democratic and 
humane. 
This radical approach needs to permeate the intervention roles of social workers 
consistently in order to be effective. It is imperative that social workers critically 
analyse the sphere they work in. This point is supported by Galper (1980:8) who 
notes that radical social work is "... essentially understanding the position of the 
oppressed in the context of the social economic structures they live in". Freire 
(1985:113) also emphasises this statement in his humanistic approach to human 
interaction which he calls "critical consciousness of the social reality". 
This approach poses questions to the traditional set mode of intervention styles. 
As a continuance of the aforementioned points, social workers then cannot be 
neutral or ethically indifferent to the social reality if it is the source of people's 
problems. By way of reinforcing the point, Naidoo (1988:11) notes that social 
workers must never cease toexpose the ways in which "... exploitation andoppression 
create victims". 
This awareness certainly has implications for social work intervention methods. 
One could ask whether the casework/intrapsychic method should be the dominant 
Problem-solving one? Should collective solutions to the problems, in consultation 
with those directly affected, not be sought?
Effective Intervention Roles of Social Workers 47 
Jinabhai (1986), in reference to the training of social workers, notes that it is 
geared towards the treatment of symptoms, providing handouts which encourages 
the welfare-dependency syndrome. The author would further add that social work 
training is predominantly urban-biased. As a result the majority of newly-qualified 
social workers practice in urban areas to the neglect of rural areas where services 
and resources are extremely limited. 
The radical and humanistic approach encourages social workers to be "change 
agents" and "agents of change" as proposed by Rothmund (1990) and Freire 
(1985). Thus they are called upon to play various roles in the humanising process. 
As educators we need to ensure critical discussion of information and the sharing 
of knowledge, eg research documents, articles, books, etc, in the search for new 
and appropriate ideas and models of intervention that would be applicable to the 
community or people served. 
Social work as a helping profession, through the radical approach, can encourage 
the roles of enabler, facilitator and advocate, while simultaneously engaging 
the strategies of empowerment and self-help. Payne (1991) explains that through 
the strategy of empowerment, people are encouraged to take charge of issues that 
affect their social well-being. This statement links up with what Rothmund (1990) 
states, ie that social workers must not only make people aware of unsatisfactory social 
conditions that negatively affect them, but must strongly motivate them to take 
action in order to bring about positive change to their prevailing situation. It is 
important also that social workers put options in an honest way to the communities 
served, as it will help them to make appropriate decisions. 
In essence, therefore, the radical social work paradigm: 
1. Offers the ideals of a humanitarian and egalitarian society. This point is 
emphasised by Patel(1989)andLetsebe and Loffel (1990) in outlining the basic 
principles for a new social welfare system. 
2. Locates the sources of problems in the socio-economic system. If breadwinners 
are unemployed because of widespread retrenchments, and as a result do not 
have money to adequately support the family (which could then give rise to 
many 'snowballing' problems for the families concerned), then the source of 
the problem is within the market mechanisms, rather than as a result of 
individual deviant behaviour. 
3. There is an emphasis on change instead of adjustment and this demands an 
understanding of fundamental change processes which is not offered by 
traditional social work. 
4. Encourages collective action and solutions in consultation with people. Collective 
activities could also inspire positive activities such as the development of 
co-operatives for the manufacturing and selling of goods that would benefit the 
collective.
48 AnnNtebe 
5. Recognises the need for political action. As Freire (1985) points out, social work 
cannot be neutral. It otherwise would choose a reactionary option, which 
undermines the forces of transformation. Already progressive social workers 
in organisations like the Social Workers' Forum, the Concerned Social Workers, 
Southern African Black Social Workers, and others have chosen to be on the 
side of the democratic movement for social change. 
6. Requiressocialworkerstobeconsistentand persistent in theirrolesasenablers, 
facilitators and advocates in their struggle for a humane welfare system. 
Conclusion 
The radical paradigm does offer a constructive and viable alternative approach to 
the residual model of welfare in the South African context However it can only 
become reality if all they key players are prepare to work at change consistently and 
relentlessly. 
Much isexpec ted of social workers who are significant change agents within the 
social welfare arena. But as the social transformation process affects the entire 
South African society, it implies that social workers, out of necessity, have to align 
themselves and join forces with other social worker organisations, other professionals 
and community social service groups whose common goal is social justice. 
Thus, social workers have to examine their own commitment to this change 
process. Remaining neutral would be a statement in itself. 
It is clear that radical social work highlights many issues of concern in the 
southern African social welfare system, a pertinent one being the lack of unity 
amongst social worker bodies. This is obviously a reflection of life in the broader 
society. It is through time that social workers acknowledge their differences, and 
work at minimising these so that progress can be made towards the establishment 
of a National Forum or Association of Social Workers in South Africa. Many painful 
but hopeful days lay ahead in our move towards social justice, democracy and 
unity. 
Footnotes 
(1) Organised by the Department of Social Work at the University of the Western Cape, 
on 16th and 17th October 1987, with the theme: "Social Welfare at the Watershed". 
(2) Hosted by the School of Social Work at the Urnversity of the Witwatersrand and an 
organising committee consisting of social worker representatives from progressive 
•ocial worker bodies in Durban, Cape Town and on the Witwatersrand, on 19th 
•nd 20th May 1989. with the theme: 'Towards aDemocratic Welfare System - 
Options and Strategies".
Effective Intervention Roles of Social Workers 49 
(3) Maputo Conference from 9th to 15th April 1990, hosted by the Medical School in 
Maputo, Mozambique with the theme: "Health and Welfare in Transition". Jointly 
organised by the Ministry of Health, Maputo, the African National Congress, 
progressive health and welfare organisations in South Africa, Committee for Health 
in Southern Africa, Anti-Apartheid Movement in the UK, and the WHO Collaborative 
Centre for Community-Based Health Sciences Education of the University of 
New Mexico. 
(4) On 19th-21stJuly 1991 at me Umvereity of the Western Cape, the First Joint National 
Conference was held with the theme: "People's Health and Social Services". 
Organised and hosted by the Health Workers' Society, National Medical and Den 
tal Association, the Organisation for Appropriate Social Services in Southern 
Africa, the Progressive Primary Health Network, the South African Health Workers' 
Congress and participants of the Social Workers' Forum. 
(5) See previous Footnote (2) 
(6) Hosted by the School of Social Work at the University of the Witwatersrand, 
Johannesburg and the Concerned Social Workers Group, on 21 st and 22nd Junel991. 
This was a Regional Consultative Conference on: National Reconstruction and 
Social Development 
References 
Argus, the (1992), 6 October, Cape Town, pl3. 
Dixon, J (1981) The Chinese Welfare System: 1949-1979, Praeger, New York. 
Freire, P (1985), The Politics of Education: Culture, Power and Liberation 
Macmillan, London. 
Galper J (1980), Social Work Practice, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New 
Jersey. 
Jinabhai C C (1986) Conference Paper, "The Apartheid Welfare System: From 
State Security to Social Security", Conference Paper presented at the Institute 
of Social Studies Seminar, Dec, Amsterdam. 
Letsebe A and Loffel J (1990) "Restructuring Social Services in South Africa", in 
Critical Health, No 31/32. 
Louw, L (1990) "Possible Models of a New Social Welfare Dispensation in South 
Africa", in The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher, Vol 3 (4): 10-11. 
Moosa M V (1989) "Towards a Democratic Social Welfare System", in L Patel, 
(ed) (1989:5), Towards a Democratic Welfare System - Options and 
Strategies, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
50 AnnNtebe 
Naidoo, Jay (1988) "Welfare in the South African Context A Challenge to the 
Social Work Profession", in In Touch, Special AGM Edition, Johannesburg. 
Patel L (ed) (1989) Towards a Democratic Welfare System - Options and 
Strategies, Co-ordinating Committee Against the Welfare Policy, Johannesburg. 
Patel, L and De Beer, C (1990) 'Transforming Health and Welfare Services: 
Problems and Prospects", in Critical Health, No 31/32, Doomfontein, 
Johannesburg. 
Patel L (1992) Restructuring Social Welfare: Options for South Africa, 
Raven Press, Johannesburg. 
Payne M (1991) Modern Social Work Theory: A Critical Introduction, 
Macmillan, London. 
People's Express (1992) "The Budget Supplement", March 25:3, Cape Town. 
Race Relations Race Relations Survey 1989/1990 , Race Relations, 
Johannesburg. 
Rothmund, G H (1990) "Roles of the Community Worker", in Social Work 
Practice/Maatskaplikewerk-Praktyk, No 3,90, pl3. 
Schrire, R (Ed) (1990) Critical Choices for South Africa: An Agenda for the 
1990's, Oxford University Press, Cape Town. 
Social Workers' Forum (1989) Memorandum, 6 October, Cape Town. 
South African Council for Social Work (1992) Reference 7/2/3, Letter, Pretoria. 
Vogelman, L (1988) "The effect of the Political Economy on Social Service Work 
and Social Service Workers", in In Touch, No 2, Johannesburg. 
Wilson, F and Ramphele M (1989) Uprooting Poverty: A Challenge to South 
Africa, David Philip, Cape Town. 
The contents appearing in 
this publication are indexed by 
ISLAMKA 
For further information, please contact: 
Dr. Munawar A. Anees, Editor-in-Chief. Periodica Islamica 
g) BIRITA FUMJSHMC 
22 Jalan Liku, 59100 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 
Tel (+60-3)282-5286 Fax (+60-3)282-1605