Civil society

We are shocked, distressed and disappointed over the Department of Home Affairs’ abrupt and unexpected decision to permanently close the (Port Elizabeth) Refugee Reception Office at the end of November. As organisations intimately involved in the protection and support of refugees and asylum seekers, we find it completely unacceptable that all stakeholders were not consulted. We were only informed late last week that no new applications for asylum would be accepted after Friday, 21 October 2011.

There are approximately 800 Somalis and Ethiopians who have been waiting weeks, and in some case months, to have their applications registered. It is a disgrace that these already traumatised refugees and asylum seekers should be treated with such disregard. To close the office down so suddenly, and without proper notice or consultation, shows a complete lack of compassion and respect for the basic rights of our most vulnerable members of society.   

Home Affairs claims that the decision was made partly because “Port Elizabeth is not located strategically to assist people who want to apply for asylum.” But many thousands of refugees from the Eastern Cape as well as the Free State, Northern Cape and southern Cape are serviced by the PE centre. New applicants and existing permit holders from all of these provinces will now be forced to travel very long distances, and at great expense, to Durban, Cape Town, Pretoria or Musina to have their permits issued or extended. It will put unbearable pressure on these already overburdened refugee reception offices who have been struggling to cope since the closure of the Johannesburg Office.    

The department also claims that the PE office needs to be closed because of “on-going dissatisfaction expressed by the local business community.” But like us, the department has been fully aware for more than a year of the court action undertaken by businesses around the Sidon Road centre. They have also known for some time that their lease was due to expire, so claiming that they missed the deadline to inform the Department of Public Works is simply not an acceptable excuse.   

The department urgently needs to explain how they intend letting applicants and permit holders know about which refugee reception office their file will be sent to, and what guarantees they intend putting in place to ensure that these files will not be misplaced. Also, if the files will only be sent to the other offices in the last week of November, what guarantees are there that those people whose permits expire during the first week of December, will be given an appointment at the other offices before their permit expires?

In light of all these unanswered questions, we call on the Department of Home Affairs to grant a two-week extension in order to give the PE Refugee Reception Office and other stakeholders sufficient time to deal with the large numbers of new applicants still waiting for assistance. We also ask that a temporary space be found for the centre as a matter of urgency, and clear guidelines be given as to how the files will be transferred to the other offices. We also call on the department to communicate these changes clearly with all their clients and inform them fully, and in good time, about how and when their files will be removed and transferred.

Ends

For more information contact:

Linton Harmse
Director
Refugee Rights Centre, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University         
Tel: 041 504 1310
Mobile: 073 176 2239

Michael Bendle
Director
Project for Conflict Resolution and Development
Tel: 041 581 2414
Mobile: 083 455 7569

Dino Jilley
Somali Association of South Africa (Eastern Cape)
Mobile: 073 500 8700

David Stephens
Programme Manager
HIVOS Eastern Cape Refugee and Migrant Programme (Eastern Cape)
Tel: 041 581 2414
Mobile: 083 225 1019

Vuyo Msizi
Fieldworker
Social Change Assistance Trust
Tel: 041 581 2414
Mobile: 084 242 2012

Alexa Lane
Provincial Director
Black Sash (Eastern Cape)
Tel: 041 487 3288
Mobile: 084 572 1467

Notes to Editors

Stakeholders involved in the extension of services to refugees and asylum seekers were invited to a meeting at the Port Elizabeth Refugee Reception Office (RRO) on 17 October 2011 to a formal briefing session surrounding the permanent closure of the RRO. This meeting was postponed while stakeholders were waiting in the reception area at the RRO at 11h00 on the 17 October 2011. No reasons were given for the postponement, except for a statement made by Baxter that he had been informed by Lusu, the acting Provincial Manager, to postpone due to a more urgent matter arising, and that the stakeholders should contact her office for further information.

Linton Harmse contacted Lusu and was informed that she would be in Port Elizabeth on Wednesday, 19 October 2011, to deal with these matters and would be in contact with the stakeholders at this time. Stakeholders were called to a meeting on Thursday, 20 October 2011, at noon at the Department of Home Affairs building in Port Elizabeth at which they were informed by Lusu that the RRO would be permanently closing on 30 November 2011, and would discontinue all registration of new applications for asylum from 21 October 2011. A formal letter dated 7 October 2011 and signed by Mkuseli Aplleni, the Director General of Home Affairs was also made available to all stakeholders present.

The stakeholders present were given an opportunity to respond and expressed their shock at the lack of communication not just with them, but with the most important group namely Asylum Seekers and Refugees, the RRO clients which clearly goes against the Batho Pele principle of 'People First'.

For more about the Project for Conflict Resolution and Development, refer to www.pcrd.org.za.

For more about the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, refer to www.nmmu.ac.za.

For more about the Social Change Assistance Trust, refer to www.scat.org.za.

For more about the Black Sash, refer to www.blacksash.org.za.

To view other NGO press releases, refer to www.ngopulse.org/group/home-page/pressreleases.

As the corporate social responsibility sector evolves, so should monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices.

There were 65 000 nonprofit organisations registered with the Department of Social Development at the end of March last year, which are some of the tremendous number of organisations in South Africa that have been formed with the intention of alleviating social problems; of ‘doing good’.

But how can we tell when ‘good’ has been done well? How do we differentiate between projects and organisations that work and those that don’t? And how important is it that we do?

The answer to the first two questions is: through proper M&E. That is, through deriving a clear and accurate picture of what the organisation does and the way in which it does it, and then sensibly measuring project achievements and impact.

Although M&E is gaining momentum in corporate social investment (CSI), its full benefits are yet to be realised. This can be attributed to a number of factors, including associated costs, inadequate project planning, and the fact that it is not fully understood or appreciated. As a result, many social investments go unmeasured, and this can have unfortunate ramifications.

Firstly, if the impact of social investment is not measured, then there is no method of screening ineffective practices. This means that it is possible that these practices will be repeated, resulting in a waste of scarce resources. Similarly, if there is no way of identifying projects that are successful and result in tangible improvements to the lives of their beneficiaries, then it is not possible to replicate these projects elsewhere, or on a larger scale.

Secondly, nonprofit organisations arguably have an obligation to produce measurable, verifiable results among those they ostensibly exist to serve.
Thirdly, donors have a right to expect a return on their social investments. This is not to say that only organisations that can show short-term, measurable results should be funded: often it takes years for the effects of a project to be felt, and denying funding to organisations trying to get off the ground will reduce innovation and experimentation in development.

At the moment, M&E in South Africa exists largely to bolster arguments for compliance with Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) and most recently, the ISO 26 000. We must move from a culture of compliance to a culture of ensuring needs are appropriately addressed. It is therefore important to suggest alternatives that may help to cultivate a culture of measurement among social investors, and to identify projects that contribute to breaking through developmental challenges, whilst exploring the value of the work being done.

As the corporate social responsibility sector evolves, through the introduction of international guidelines that require social responsibility programmes to move from cheque-signing relationships to relationships that engage with communities, so should M&E practices. This evolution requires transformation of ad hoc M&E processes towards more formalised processes that reflect the growing need for accountability, learning and responsible giving.

This is not to say that M&E should serve to simplify the CSI process to the extent that the choice of whether or not to fund a project should be reduced to a couple of variables. Development is complex and, for this reason, clear-cut M&E solutions do not exist. M&E should be tailored to the needs of each development programme.

Tshikululu has designed alternative M&E options whereby social investors can make choices that are appropriate to development programmes. These M&E recommendations are benchmarked against the size of the grant, and include:

• Basic monitoring, which is recommended for small and once-off grants. It functions only to ensure that resources are used to implement activities in the manner agreed between the projects and the grantmakers;
• Intensive monitoring, which is recommended for multi-year and large grants where the social investor is interested in keeping track of the performance of the programme and comparing its effects to the programme objectives; and
• The full M&E package, which is recommended for multi-year projects and large grants. Because of the nature of activities involved in monitoring and evaluation, the full M&E package can be costly, but it is worthwhile for social investors who are interested in evaluating the journey the programme has taken and the impact it has achieved.

CSI is predicated on the understanding that it is possible to encourage work that makes real, tangible and positive changes in the lives of disadvantaged people, and in order for those changes to take root and become part of a long-term solution; they should be measurable and communicable.

- Mokibelo Ntshabeleng is monitoring and evaluation specialist at Tshikululu Social Investments.

International human rights groups are reporting increases in hate crimes against gays and lesbians across Africa.

Denis Nzioka, one of East Africa’s most prominent gay rights activists, points out that, “We have seen an upsurge of violence, of discrimination.…  You’ve got guys in Cameroon being arrested; you’ve got guys in Nigeria being killed for being gay.  It’s happening all over Africa.”

 In South Africa, according to Natasha Vally of Lesbian and Gay Equality Project, a particularly worrying phenomenon in Africa is, “Police homophobia.…  Police are increasingly using arrest itself as a means of punishment.  So we’ve seen in lots of these cases it doesn’t appear that the police have the intention to prosecute at all.”

To read the article titled, "Africa’s gays say they’re ‘under siege," click here.

 Child welfare experts say a Tshwane day- mother who has been accused of assault after an eight-month-old baby was allegedly abused at her house acted ‘irresponsibly’ and was ‘neglectful’.

Lidia Venter, from the Pretoria Day-Mothers Association which the accused day-mother belongs to, says it is the duty of a day-mother to ensure the person they leave children with is responsible.

“You cannot leave the children with a stranger. It has to be someone responsible, someone you know very well,” says Lidia.

To read the article titled, “Day mother blamed over alleged child abuse,” click here.