Although the new budget allocations came into effect on 1 April, many nonprofit organisations (NPOs) had this information partly communicated to them at a Gallagher Estate function on 5 April by Mbali Hlophe, Gauteng MEC for social development, agriculture, rural development and environment.

Gauteng’s Department of Social Development (DSD) budget was increased marginally by R12-million to R5.55-billion for the 2023/24 financial year and is spread across five areas: administration; development and research; children and families; restorative services and social welfare. 

While the budget allocated to development and research increased by R358-million (41.8%), two programmes received less funding than they had in the previous financial year. The administration budget was reduced by around R67-million (8.5%) and the budget for social welfare services by R216.5-million (31.4%) – a move many have criticised. 

Lisa Vetten, a research associate at Wits University’s Southern Centre for Inequality Studies. (Photo: Chris Collingridge)

Lisa Vetten, a research associate at Wits University’s Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, said slashing such a large chunk of money from the budget has caused a welfare crisis across the province. 

The main concerns are the 52.4% budget cut for HIV services; a 28.9% cut for people with disabilities; a 20.5% cut for the elderly; a 21.1% cut for family services; zero allocation for child protection services; an 18.2% cut for childcare services and a 57% cut for crime prevention programmes.

There is also a 131.7% increase (an additional R348.5-million) – well more than a quarter of the entire subsidy budget – allocated for poverty alleviation programmes deemed a new priority area.

“What happened is that the department reprioritised a very significant amount of money – R316.5-million, a cut of 31% – in order to transfer that to projects doing what they call development and research … that is basically community development,” Vetten said. 

Several projects that have been allocated more money have not been evaluated for their effectiveness. 

“They [DSD] appear to have decided that running recycling projects, sewing school uniforms and running cooperatives – which the DSD will procure from – is more important and a bigger priority than taking care of people with disabilities, children and older persons,” she said. 

The department stated on 9 April that the overall R2.3-billion budget for NPOs was not being cut, but was being “reconfigured” to respond to Gauteng premier Panyaza Lesufi’s “identified priorities”, especially substance abuse treatment. 

Vetten labelled this a “half-truth”.

“That R2.3-billion is there … all they have done is taken it away from social care services and given it to NGOs who are now going to be doing waste recycling, sewing school uniforms and running cooperatives and food gardens,” she said.  

“The department has prioritised recycling over the safety of children, the protection of people with disabilities and all other vulnerable populations.”

Mbali Hlophe, Gauteng MEC for social development. (Photo: Gallo Images / OJ Koloti)

Plans to address the crisis 

Vetten said the situation needed to be remedied through litigation.  

“That process has begun because this decision defies rights to administrative justice. There was no meaningful consultation here. The department has also tried to deny people the right to procedural fairness by pushing them to sign SLAs [service-level agreements] that are completely disadvantageous.” 

Vetten said the only solution is for the department to return the R365-million and ensure that all services are funded at the levels they were before. 

“The bottom line is that the budget prioritisation cannot go ahead.” 

Organisations that sign the SLA are advised to make it clear that they are doing so under protest and reserve the right to challenge the contracts, she said.

Margaret Grobbelaar, coordinator at the National Coalition of Social Services, said that some organisations have given law firm Webber Wentzel power of attorney to act on their behalf and represent them on a pro bono basis.

No alternative plans are in place

There is no evidence that the department considered the consequences of these budget cuts, said Vetten. 

“They have not offered alternative accommodation for people who were in residential facilities. They have not said where the people who attended protected workshops should go. They have not offered to take over feeding programmes for children. They have not offered to provide care for children with disabilities. They haven’t attempted in any way to think about what happens to foster care adoption and child protection services that were being rendered by NGOs,” she said. 

The lack of funding for child protection services is a new development and also a cause for concern, said Vetten. Although the Gauteng DSD told organisations last year that they would take over these services, it is unclear how or when this will happen. 

“Again, there’s been no planning, no preparation, no thinking, no discussion of this,” she adds. 

Despite budget cuts, the department is still asking organisations to service the same number of beneficiaries as last year, and in some instances even more beneficiaries. 

“Expecting them to do the same work they did last year with a third of the budget is just patently unreasonable,” she said. 

Vetten also criticised the department for failing to communicate with NPOs. “What the department calls a consultation meeting, is actually just a proclamation. They invite people to come to the meeting and they say, ‘this is what is going to happen’. That is not a consultation,” she said.

There was a meeting on 22 September 2022 where the DSD announced it would be taking back certain services, said Vetten.

“That was not a consultation … it was very clear the decision had already been made,” she added.  

“There was no discussion about it, and that’s been the basis of one part of our legal action – that organisations repeatedly requested meetings and further clarity from the department,” she said. The department consistently failed to respond and no meetings were ever held. 

A meeting held on 5 April 2023 also couldn’t be described as a consultation. “By then, the new financial year had started … what she [MEC Mbali Hlophe] announced was a fait accompli and now she is scrambling.” 

The rejection letters received by those who applied for funding are generic, vague and insufficient, according to Vetten. 

“None of those letters say the department will be meeting with you to discuss the transfer of your X number of residents to X facility. That’s not good enough … there is no thought and it’s a violation of the rights of administrative justice because you’re not getting good, reasonable decisions.” 

Impacting on labour rights

Vetten says the decision has had a massive impact on people’s labour rights. She explained that there was a significant gender equality dimension to the department’s decision as the bulk of those who work in the sector are women. 

“If NGOs close and people are deprived of services, care responsibilities will be pushed back onto families – usually the female members. The DSD will then be taking advantage of women’s unpaid care work,” she said. 

Potential tragedy looming? 

“One of the places they will have to consider closing is Gordonia [Rehabilitation Centre]. This is when what the department is doing starts to look like Life Esidimeni, because these are people with disabilities who live in residential facilities,” Vetten said. 

An organisation in Soweto that assists quadriplegics and has 30 beneficiaries no longer has funding, while Gordonia runs some facilities for people with severe intellectual disabilities, and now has no social workers. 

“So, we’ll have people living in the facility who will be given food and be washed, but that’s the only service they’ll get,” she said. 

The scale of the crisis

Vetten said they were still trying to calculate the scale of the crisis, but that it was severe. 

“You are looking at at least 10,000 to 12,000 people losing services, and that’s just mental health,” she said. Many organisations face imminent closure. 

“Some will have to close at the end of the month, but a couple will be able to go without funding for maybe another two, maximum six, months and that’s it … What about the people who [the department] has decided are no longer priorities – where do they go? What do they do?” DM/MC