Content uploaded by Mziwandile Sobantu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mziwandile Sobantu on Aug 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article
Southern African Journal of Social Work and Social Development
https://doi.org/10.25159/2415-5829/7222
https://unisapressjournals.co.za/index.php/SWPR/index
ISSN 2415-5829 (Online), ISSN 0520-0097 (Print)
Volume 34 | Number 2 | 2022 | #7222 | 15 pages
© Unisa Press 2022
Social Rental Housing and Empowerment: Voices of
Beneficiaries from Gauteng, South Africa
Mziwandile Sobantu
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8516-4623
University of Johannesburg, South Africa
msobantu@uj.ac.za
Abstract
Adequate housing undergirds all social and economic relations, connecting
communities with other related services that are key for people’s optimum
development. It is a key social welfare service and a basic human need whose
empowerment function resonates with the social work agenda of enabling
smooth functioning of the society and creating socially and economically viable
communities. In this article, I report on the housing experiences of social
housing beneficiaries in the Gauteng province of South Africa. Using an
empowerment lens, I contend that housing has the potential to give people more
control and self-determination over their lives by linking them to the economy.
I employed purposive sampling in this qualitative study and selected three social
housing institutions: two in Johannesburg and one in Pretoria. In each of these
institutions a focus group discussion was conducted with the beneficiaries. The
research findings indicate that adequate housing delivery bears numerous
empowerment dividends, directly helping poor people to break from a cycle of
poverty. Consonant with its mandate of empowering communities, social work
needs to be more proactive in housing advocacy on behalf of poor people and
marginalised individuals and groups.
Keywords: housing; empowerment; housing delivery; social rental housing; South
Africa
Sobantu
2
Introduction and Background
Housing has always been known to empower vulnerable individuals, families and
communities (Sobantu 2019). Mulroy (1988, 19) stressed that “adequate housing is
central for people’s need for food, clothing, and shelter . . . is important to their physical
and psychological well-being”. Housing is therefore more than just brick and mortar; it
is central to redistribution. Importantly, it undergirds all economic and social relations;
supporting home-based enterprises which generate employment and income while also
providing an opportunity for individuals to relate to each other, with dignity as human
beings (Hohmann 2013). There is a strong correlation between adequate housing and
improved citizenship, health, social capital and overall well-being for families and the
society (Potgieter 2007; Sobantu 2019).
I concur with Hohmann (2013, 1) in that housing as an empowerment tool is
“understudied and ill-defined” by government, academics and social services
practitioners. Arguably, little has been done in South Africa to harness the housing
dividend towards empowering poor people. Carter and Polevychok (2004, vi) strongly
suggest that housing research needs to be strengthened and efforts accelerated to ensure
that housing policy planning takes “place at the table with education and health care
when spending priorities are discussed”. Social work remains committed to “ensur[ing]
the smooth functioning of society by trying to break the patterns in recursive cycles that
affect the lives of people” (Potgieter 2007, 5). Owing to the significance of housing
when dealing with poverty and human rights backlogs in the country, housing policy
practice and research therefore also fall within the ambit of social work.
Post-apartheid South Africa is faced with a persistent housing challenge that perpetuates
poverty and deprivation for poor people (Sobantu 2019, 2021). This is despite the
country’s progressive Constitution and the pro-poor social policies that have been
promulgated by the democratic government since 1994. In line with the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (UN 1948), the Constitution (RSA 1996)
declares that “everyone has a right to have access to adequate housing [and] the state
must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to
achieve progressive realisation of this right”. Furthermore, in Section 26(2) of the
Constitution, the government is mandated to ensure the “progressive realisation of the
right to adequate housing”. Such a policy stance is not coincidental but is informed by
high levels of poverty that characterise South Africa (Stats SA 2019). The potential of
empowering families through housing is recognised by the UDHR, which emphasises
that housing is not “simply providing shelter from elements, creating sustainable,
integrated housing settlements, and generating wealth through asset creation. For the
indigent, it is also about social welfare and access to basic services” (UN 1948).
It is therefore germane for the government and related stakeholders to rethink the role
of housing in spearheading “personal and socio-economic development processes that
give power to people” (Du Bois and Miley as quoted in Potgieter 2007, 9).
Empowerment in South Africa is largely enhancing poor people’s access to livelihood
Sobantu
3
opportunities, clean water, electricity and sanitation, among other needs. As spelt out in
housing policy, social rental housing (SRH) has been known to play an essential role in
uplifting the socio-economic circumstances of the previously disadvantaged
beneficiaries (Sobantu 2021). Through government funding, social housing institutions
(SHIs) provide “quality, affordable housing for the low-income households that were
excluded in colonial and apartheid housing delivery processes” (Sobantu 2019, 80). The
proximity of SRH to livelihood opportunities and advanced services contributes
immensely towards redistribution and empowerment.
This study therefore aimed at investigating the housing experiences of SRH
beneficiaries in Gauteng. It was informed by three objectives, namely to (1) explore the
beneficiaries’ expectations from housing and investigate their experiences of SRH,
(2) establish the relationship between SRH and beneficiaries’ participation in the
economy, and (3) investigate the implications of SRH on the accessibility of
management by the beneficiaries. In essence, this article reports on the findings of these
three objectives.
Firstly, in this article, I discuss empowerment as a theoretical lens in the context of
housing delivery. Next, I outline the methodology that was applied in the study. The
findings of the study are discussed thereafter, in integration with the literature on
housing, empowerment and social work. Throughout this article, I deliberately
interweave the relevance of social work as a profession in housing delivery and
empowerment.
Empowerment as a Theoretical Lens in Housing Delivery
As a theoretical concept, empowerment has a huge footprint in psychology and social
work by which it is understood to refer to individuals assuming control over their lives
and participating in affairs that pertain to them (Zimmerman 1995; Zimmerman and
Rappaport 1998, 726). From a social justice perspective, empowerment advocates
access to resources for the socially and economically disenfranchised populations so
that they can also play an active role in their development. It stems from the premise
that marginalised people are powerless and therefore often feel worthless and without
dignity. The social services professions therefore have a duty to devise “measures [that
are] aimed at protecting the welfare of vulnerable in society” (Noyoo 2010, 23) and
improving their social and economic lives.
Hohmann (2013) asserted that housing delivery plays an integral role in empowering
poor people as it is both a physical and an emotional asset that fulfils the basic need for
shelter and boosts the occupants’ self-esteem and human dignity. Inherent in its shift
towards developmental approaches to social welfare and developmental social work to
redress poverty and inequality, social work’s mandate is that of empowering
communities to access housing and other services. Empowering poor and marginalised
people is the essence of social work. Discrimination from housing during colonial and
Sobantu
4
apartheid laws and continued exclusion at the level of gender, race, sexual orientation
and disability means that many people are today powerless in informal settlements and
backyard dwellings (Noyoo and Sobantu 2019). Kleinhans and Elsinga (2010) and even
government in its 1994 White Paper for the Reconstruction and Development
Programme (RDP) recognised the potential of housing to empower poor people by
generating income, creating wealth and therefore promoting redistribution and social
justice.
In housing research, empowerment has been linked to “how people acquire power,
status and positions and how their perceptions change accordingly” (Kleinhans and
Elsinga 2010, 44). In South Africa, where “waiting for the state-provided homes is
normal . . . and [an] intergenerational condition” (Oldfield and Greyling 2015, 1100),
access to housing gives poor people a real sense of achievement, pride, hope, status,
power, self-esteem and control (Sobantu 2021). When she underscored that housing has
a multiplier effect, Huchzermeyer (2001, 308) simply meant that housing delivery bears
numerous empowerment benefits. For example, conveniently located housing promotes
the occupants’ access to piped water, sanitation, electricity, transport services, advanced
services and amenities and employment opportunities (Sobantu 2019). As an
empowerment asset, housing therefore facilitates nation-building through “alleviation
of poverty as well as contributing to the redistribution of wealth” (Charlton and Kihato
2006, 262). Adequate housing correlates with enhanced access to education, food,
healthcare facilities, nutrition for children and stability and security for families. In a
significant way, housing is a social investment that contributes to the “future functioning
of people” (Lombard 2011, 535).
I argue that empowerment and adequate housing are synonymous with developmental
social work and implore social workers to familiarise themselves with the value of
housing. Ncube (2019) pointed out that somehow, social workers struggle to apply
developmental social work in practice when confronting the structural challenges such
as lack of housing and poverty in South Africa. With numerous housing-related
challenges in South Africa, the social work profession probably needs to rethink its
individuals, groups and community empowerment strategies towards prioritising
adequate housing delivery.
Research Methodology
In this study, I applied a qualitative approach which enabled me to gain an in-depth and
rich understanding of the participants’ experiences of SRH (Fouché and Schurink
2013, 308). An exploratory design was deemed appropriate and useful for the study
because of the need to probe and follow emerging themes (Fouché and Schurink 2013).
Both the approach and design were appropriate, especially considering the paucity of
social work research that combines housing and empowerment.
Sobantu
5
Population
This study targeted beneficiaries who resided in registered SHIs in Gauteng, specifically
in Johannesburg and Pretoria. I checked with the Social Housing Regulatory Authority
(SHRA) for the most recent list of accredited institutions which are based in
Johannesburg and Pretoria. In addition, I consulted with both the Department of Human
Settlements which registers SHIs through its agency SHRA and the National
Association of Social Housing Organisations. The aim of the consultation was to check
for registered SHIs to approach for this study. Some SHIs on the list turned down the
request to conduct this study, leaving only three institutions that agreed to their tenants’
participation.
Sampling and Recruitment
In the three institutions, I recruited participants through volunteer and purposive
sampling (Ritchie et al. 2014, 113). Jupp (2006) defined volunteer sampling as the self-
selection of participants to take part in the study either in response to an advert or when
directly requested to participate. Purposive sampling underscores that participants are
selected because they possess key characteristics that will help the study answer the
research question (Ritchie et al. 2014). In the advert, I highlighted that the study was
interested in those individuals with experiences of (1) SRH, (2) the linkages between
SRH and participation in the economy, and (3) implications of SRH on accessibility of
management.
With the help of housing supervisors, I distributed adverts to the tenants in each SHI.
The participants had to be (1) a mix of both males and females, (2) registered with their
SHIs as beneficiaries of SRH, (3) in their current SRH for a minimum of two years, and
(4) willing to participate.
Socio Demographics of the Participants
Altogether, 21 participants (seven from each institution) registered interest to take part
in the focus group discussions (FGDs). A total of 16 participants were female and five
were male. Among the male participants was one white pensioner and the other
participants were black Africans. Of the 21, seven were married, 11 were single, two
were separated, and one was divorced. Of interest and in line with the literature on
feminisation of poverty, all six who were self-employed as hairdressers and street
vegetable vendors were females. The other six were formally employed as secretaries,
waiters and cashiers. The balance of the female participants were students. The men
also occupied low-income jobs, namely bricklayers, drivers and mechanics. All the
married participants lived with their spouses and children in bigger units (such as
“bachelor” units which comprised one or two bedrooms). Those participants who were
single, divorced or separated lived alone or with a sibling in smaller units.
Sobantu
6
Data Collection
The study used FGDs to gather data from the beneficiaries, with each discussion lasting
between 60 and 90 minutes. Three FGDs were conducted as part of this study, with each
comprising seven participants. An FGD guide consisted of broader themes to be
explored in the discussions and this guided me in facilitating the discussions (Finch,
Lewis, and Turley 2014). The main themes which informed the discussions were:
(1) expectations from housing and experiences of SRH, (2) linkages between SRH and
economic participation, and (3) implications of SRH on accessibility of management.
English was used in gathering the data and the discussions were tape-recorded to have
a “permanent record of what was and was not said” (Gill et al. 2008, 293). In addition,
note-taking was done to capture the non-verbal expressions of the participants and
processes.
Data Analysis
I transcribed all the data using thematic content analysis to identify key and emerging
themes and to “make sense of the raw data” (Merriam 1998, 178). This involved the
rearrangement and reorganising of piles of field data into meaningful codes (Cresswell
2014). The data were assigned to the three main themes which aligned with the
objectives. The verbatim responses were retained to enrich the analysis and to empower
the participants through their voices from the field.
Ethical Considerations
Regarding the ethics, this study was cleared by the Research Ethics Committee
(approval number 01-033-2016) of the Faculty of Humanities at the University of
Johannesburg. All the participating SHIs issued a permission letter allowing me to
conduct the interviews with the willing participants. Before embarking on the data
collection, I detailed the purpose of the study to the participants and guaranteed them
confidentiality and anonymity of their contribution to the study. The participants were
assured that the study would use pseudonyms to protect their identities (Strydom 2013).
Furthermore, they were guaranteed that their responses and discussions would not be
shared with their SHIs. In the same vein, I clarified the information contained in the
participation information letter to those participants who posed questions. This was
crucial to empowering interested individuals in making informed decisions about their
participation. In respecting the participants’ right of self-determination, consent to take
part in the study and to have the interviews audio-recorded was obtained from all the
participants (Strydom 2013). Consent was obtained through having the participants
signing consent forms. Furthermore, the participants were assured that they could
withdraw from the study at any time if they felt uncomfortable about going ahead.
Sobantu
7
Presentation and Discussion of Findings
The data that were gathered indicated that the participants shared valuable experiences
which the researcher adapted to the empowerment lens. The findings and discussions
were based on the three interrelated themes, namely, (1) beneficiaries’ expectations and
experiences of housing, (2) SRH and economic participation, and (3) accessible
management. In addition, there were challenges that the participants shared with me,
which are important to reflect as the fourth theme in this discussion. The discussions
integrated literature on empowerment and in some instances verbatim responses were
used to amplify the participants’ voices. The participants’ real names were replaced by
pseudonyms.
Beneficiaries’ Expectations and Experiences of Social Rental Housing
The participants in this current study shared that they expected housing to advance their
basic human rights. Among other rights, they cited safety and security as central to
promoting peace and dignity in their neighbourhood. For housing and neighbourhoods
to provide safety and security, the participants insisted that housing be constructed using
good quality materials and maintained accordingly. The participants’ expectations and
experiences of SRH were therefore centred on safety and security including the way in
which this was made possible. These are reflected in the following excerpts:
Just like everyone would, I expect to experience real sense of being safe, secure and
stable in my house. (Esther)
I love the house because it’s good quality; locks, windows, doors and the security wall
are strong also. I’m here as long as I want. (Grace)
The place is quiet, security is tight and because of crime and as a woman, I must also be
vigilant of rape and violence. (Nomawethu)
I feel safe here with my children, I’m at peace when children play outside. (Nonceba)
We have electricity, water and flushing toilets. (Nosipho)
A total of 16 (76%) of the participants were women who underlined that they had long
awaited housing which would provide secure and dignified shelter for them and their
children. These expectations were not unreasonable nor their experiences coincidental.
Rather they were informed by rampant crime against women, gender-based violence
(GBV), domestic violence (DV) and femicide occurring in South Africa (Sobantu
2021). Nomawethu’s fears represent those of many women in the country who live in
perpetual fear because of unsafe housing and neighbourhoods. Raniga and Ngcobo
(2014) and Sobantu (2019, 2021) elaborate on the entrenched socio-economic exclusion
of women from quality education which leads to feminisation of poverty. Evidence from
this study shows that women relied on meagre incomes from working as hairdressers,
vegetable vendors, waiters and cashiers. Evident in the findings is a nexus of pertinent
Sobantu
8
empowerment issues which include gender equality and the need to analyse and redress
women’s housing and human rights issues from a broader structural lens. Attending to
these issues is in the interest of social work which is implored to take interest in rights-
based and pro-women approaches to housing delivery.
From Grace’s experience, SRH provided quality infrastructure which boosted security
and therefore longer tenures. Such experiences of quality housing are a break from the
subsidised housing popularly known as RDPs (now referred to as Breaking New
Ground) in which defects are common (Manomano and Tanga 2018). Housing quality
is not restricted to physical walls, but it also incorporates connections to services and
amenities, refusal disposal, security and supportive relationships. Linking occupants to
these services empowers communities in numerous related ways. To start with, longer
tenures because of quality housing fosters stability of families which in turn gives them
confidence to invest (socially and economically) in their housing and communities. As
most parents in this study, Nonceba pointed out the safety of her children in SRH.
According to Lee (2017, 54), safe housing and neighbourhoods “relieve the burden of
younger family members’ carer roles . . . [to] concentrate on work and productivity”
and therefore generating incomes and nutrition for the families. Work productivity and
improved income are social investments that bear long-term human development
benefits for both the parents and their children.
Enhancing Participation in the Economy
As briefly hinted in the foregoing paragraph, quality housing generally results in safer
environments, longer tenures and therefore stability for the occupants to invest in their
structures and to engage in livelihood activities. Extending economic opportunities to
the previously disadvantaged groups such as black people and especially women is a
barometer of empowerment and guaranteeing peace, development and nation-building
(Sobantu 2021). Below are some of the excerpts from the participants which highlight
their experiences of SRH pertaining to their participation in the economy:
I don’t have to worry about my children’s safety when I’m at work. (Pamela)
. . . because our belongings are safe here, we can spend as much time as possible at
work, I can even work overtime. (Thomas)
In the immediate term to long term, this progress tackles poverty and crime in the
neighbourhoods. Poverty and crime undermine human rights and human dignity. Any
effort that improves people’s access to housing and opportunities contributes to the
goals of achieving cohesive, sustainable and caring communities (Gauteng Provincial
Government 2018).
In a similar vein, Arku (2006, 385) strongly argued that adequate housing has a huge
empowerment value as “it generates economic growth, creates wealth, creates
employment and income, redistributes income and serves as a macroeconomic
Sobantu
9
stabiliser”. The participants shared that proximity to various means of reliable transport
gives them quicker access to different livelihood opportunities. Kleinhans and Elsinga
(2010) posit that central to empowerment is presenting accessible and sustainable
options to poor and marginalised people. The responses from this study indicate that
SRH has empowered the participants to have a greater sense of control and with more
opportunities and income to have a positive impact on their life courses. It is therefore
more appropriate for social work in South Africa to validate its role in housing through
research and other forms of advocacy in its quest to improve the social functioning of
poor citizens.
Accessible Management
All the participants appreciated the accessibility of their housing managers by all
beneficiaries irrespective of gender, language and tribe. The following three responses
from the participants show the managers’ accessibility and responses regarding
complaints:
She is easily accessible because she’s here with her family. She is not the kind of person
that will judge you based on the language that you speak and she is a kind of a person
that is always around our premises, notices faults and is quick on reporting them and
making sure that they are fixed. We’re lucky because our maintenance guy stays here
also. (Nonceba)
He’s a nice young man. He also stays in here with us and his family. He is an example
and inspiration to many because he is approachable anytime. He doesn’t stay with our
problems but makes sure he works on them. (Grace)
This place is clean, management is approachable and quick. I’m happy to continue
paying my rent. (Ernest)
In private and SRH, management plays a critical role in determining the emotional and
physical well-being of the beneficiaries (Priemus, Dieleman, and Clapham 1999, 211).
It is pleasing to note that these managers who are popularly known as housing caretakers
play a positive part in creating meaningful empowering experiences for the
beneficiaries. An accessible manager in rental stock has an empowering function,
especially for the low-income earners who “often express a sense of hopelessness,
powerlessness, humiliation and marginalisation” (Mantle and Backwith 2010, 2386).
Accessibility and quick turnovers in maintenance demonstrate care for the tenants’
health and well-being. This is because blocked drains, uncollected garbage and
neglected infrastructure pose a health risk as these create a breeding environment for
cockroaches, rats, bacteria and fungi (Cozens and Tarca 2016).
Most empowering in the above excerpts is that the relationship between the managers
and the participants have matured with regard to the principles of democracy, human
dignity, respect, partnerships and human rights. However, it should be remembered that
these experiences are not representative of the entire SRH sector and a focus on altering
Sobantu
10
human relationships in the broader sector is urgently required. Mantle and Backwith
(2010) highlight that both tenants and especially landlords have a duty to partner with
each other to cultivate ownership of their housing and communities. Such an inclusive
project is empowering for the occupants as they get actively involved in co-planning
and implementing strategies to fight crime, GBV and DV. The value of social work
should stretch beyond conscientising poor people about their responsibilities in shaping
relationships in their respective neighbourhoods to dismantling the barriers that hinder
them from doing so.
Challenges with Social Rental Housing
On the other hand, the participants also shared some of the challenges with their
housing. These are not uncommon and are a consequence of restrictions in the SH
policy. This article reports on only two challenges, namely, the lack of an ownership
option of the units that they are renting and the rising monthly rentals. These responses
capture some of the participants’ frustrations with SRH:
Even though we’re happy here, but this isn’t my house . . . I wish I could be paying my
monthly rental towards my own bond, but I’ve upgraded my qualifications and recently
got a promotion and I’m searching for my own house. (Joyce)
At times I feel frustrated that I don’t qualify for an RDP and I also can’t qualify to buy
my own house from the market. I’m trapped here. (Angel)
As prescribed in the Social Housing Act, SRH is not for ownership but only for rental
purposes (RSA 2008). While using their SRH units, the beneficiaries are expected to
improve their financial circumstances so that they could move into better units in SRH
or acquire their own housing from the market. A process that allows tenants “alternative
housing options . . . housing choices according to their incomes” is referred to by the
Madulammoho Housing Association (2018, 1) as a housing ladder. In view of the
existing barriers of poor people, moving up this ladder should be the collaborative
responsibility of SRH landlords, government, the tenants, private housing developers
and other stakeholders including social workers and advocates of pro-poor adequate
housing delivery (Sobantu and Nel 2019).
As reflected in Joyce’s response, the second most common challenge highlighted in this
study was that of the high subsidised rentals. Consonant with Charlton (2013) who
argued that SRH excludes the poorest of poor people, the participants agreed that their
rentals were going up annually. The participants doubted if they will be able to continue
paying these rentals in the near future. Exacerbating this challenge is the low incomes
that most SRH beneficiaries receive. Ironically, these incomes are above the minimum
qualifying threshold for RDP houses but are far too little to enable them to acquire
housing from the market. These are some of the structural impediments that social
workers need to be aware of and work deliberately to engage government in their bid to
empower many South Africans who are stuck in SRH.
Sobantu
11
Relevance of Housing, Empowerment and Social Work
Throughout the article, I endeavoured to emphasise that housing delivery is ultimately
a social policy and a social work concern which contributes hugely towards the
empowerment of individuals, families and communities. Especially in the empirical
findings, this article established the multiplier empowerment impact of housing in that
it links the occupants to essential services that are integral for the human development
of children and optimum development of families and communities. Emerging from the
history of colonial and apartheid discrimination, housing helps people realise their rights
to sanitation, electricity and running water; services that add value to human life and
proffer dignity, self-worth and human rights. Because housing undergirds all social and
economic relations (Hohmann 2013, 13), social work and other stakeholders will need
to rethink their empowerment strategies towards advocating adequate housing that is
premised on the empowerment frameworks. Such strategies are more likely to result in
peaceful, safe, stable, secure, integrated and enabling settlements that promote healthy
human relations among older persons, children, men and women of all colours, creed
and sexual orientation.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The experiential voices of 21 SRH beneficiaries in this Johannesburg- and Pretoria-
based study have shown that housing is not just bricks and mortar, but it bears key
empowerment implications to beneficiaries’ social and economic well-being. In this
article, I examine the SRH experiences of beneficiaries with regard to access to
management and the bearing of this type of housing in integrating participants into the
economy. The empirical evidence substantiates that SRH empowers the living and
neighbourhood environment for raising families in safe and secure housing. The
participants, especially the women, in this study demonstrated the centrality of safe and
secure housing for themselves and their children. They also appreciated the quick
responses that they receive from their housing managers pertaining to the faults in their
units and other complaints. This is chiefly because of the violent crimes and abuse
against women and children, most of which are perpetrated by their significant others
in the built environment. In addition, the findings resonate with the literature and policy
which stress that the essence of SRH is to empower poor people by positioning them
proximal to job opportunities. This has a redistribution effect in a highly unequal society
such as South Africa. On the other hand, it is worth noting that the participants expressed
frustration over high rentals and challenges of progressing up the housing ladder.
Based on the conclusions, the following recommendations are made:
• An urgent policy is needed in which the mandate of SRH is reconsidered, from
occupying a subsidiary role and allowing more SHIs to registering and providing
more housing stock to the market.
Sobantu
12
• The SRH beneficiaries and the public need to be educated on the available
options that may be chosen if they need to move up the housing ladder. For
example, the Department of Human Settlements provides the Finance Linked
Subsidy Programme, an initiative to help first-time home buyers to buy and own
their own houses.
• SHIs and other interested stakeholders could boost the incomes of SRH
beneficiaries through more developmental strategies, for example, by helping
them to register as enterprises which may also compete for tenders for cleaning
and laundry services in their respective SHIs.
• This study represented a limited sample of 21 SRH beneficiaries in three SHIs
and did not reflect gender dynamics. I therefore recommend that more studies be
conducted that would be informed by a gender lens. Other studies may focus on
other SHIs across South Africa.
References
Arku, G. 2006. “The Housing and Economic Development Debate Revisited: Economic
Significance of Housing in Developing Countries.” Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment 21 (4): 377–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-006-9056-3.
Carter, T., and C. Polevychok. 2004. Housing is Good Social Policy. Ottawa: Canadian Policy
Research Networks.
Charlton, S. 2013. “State Ambitions and Peoples’ Practices: An Exploration of RDP Housing
in Johannesburg.” PhD thesis, University of Sheffield.
Charlton, S., and C. Kihato. 2006. “Reaching the Poor? An Analysis of the Influences of the
Evolution of South Africa’s Housing Programme.” In Democracy and Delivery: Urban
Policy in South Africa, edited by U. Pillay, R. Tomlinson and J. du Toit, 224–265. Cape
Town: Human Sciences Research Council.
Cozens, P., and M. Tarca. 2016. “Exploring Housing Maintenance and Vacancy in Western
Australia.” Property Management 34 (3): 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-06-2015-
0027.
Cresswell, J. W. 2014. Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approach. 4th ed. London: Sage.
Finch, H., E. Lewis, and C. Turley. 2014. “Focus Groups.” In Qualitative Research Practice,
edited by J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholas and R. Ormston, 211–242. London: Sage.
Fouché, C. B., and W. Schurink. 2013. “Qualitative Research Designs.” In Research at
Grassroots: For the Social Sciences and Human Services Professions, edited by
A. S. de Vos, H. Strydom, H. Fouché and C. S. L. Delport, 307–327. Cape Town: Van
Schaik.
Sobantu
13
Gauteng Provincial Government. 2018. “Overview. Gauteng Department of Human
Settlements.” Accessed 18 May 2018.
https://provincialgovernment.co.za/units/view/35/gauteng/human-settlements.
Gill, P., K. Stewart, E. Treasure, and B. Chadwick. 2008. “Methods of Data Collection in
Qualitative Research: Interviews and Focus Groups.” British Dental Journal 204 (6): 291–
95. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192.
Hohmann, J. 2013. The Right to Housing Law, Concepts, Possibilities. Oxford: Hart.
Huchzermeyer, M. 2001. “Housing for the Poor? Negotiated Housing Policy in South Africa.”
Habitat International 25: 303–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0197-3975(00)00037-0.
Jupp, V. 2006. The Sage Dictionary of Social Research Methods. London: Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020116.
Kleinhans, R., and M. Elsinga. 2010. “‘Buy your Own Home and Feel in Control’ Does Home
Ownership Achieve the Empowerment of Former Tenants of Social Housing?”
International Journal of Housing Policy 10 (1): 41–61.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14616710903573757.
Lee, J. 2017. “Housing and Social Investment: Lessons from Hong Kong and Singapore. In
Social Investment and Social Welfare: International and Critical Perspectives edited by
J. Midgley, E. Dahl, and A. C. Wright, 53–69. Cheltemham: Edward Elgar.
Lombard, A. 2011. “Book Review. Social Work and Social Development: Theories and Skills
for Developmental Social Work.” Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 47 (4): 534–38.
https://doi.org/10.15270/47-4-121.
Madulammoho Housing Association. 2018. “The Heartbeat of Affordable Housing.” Accessed
20 October 2018. https://www.mh.org.za.
Manomano, T., and P. Tanga. 2018. “Housing Needs: The Quality and Quantity of Housing
Provided by the Government for the Poor in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa.”
Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk 54 (1): 19–36. https://doi.org/10.15270/54-1-612.
Mantle, G., and D. Backwith. 2010. “Poverty and Social Work.” British Journal of Social
Work 40 (8): 2380–97. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq068.
Merriam, S. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mulroy, A. 1988. Women as Single Parents: Confronting Institutional Barriers in the Courts,
the Workplace, and the Housing Market. London: Auburn House.
Ncube, M. 2019. “Conceptualising Social Development Supervision in Social Work.” Indian
Journal of Social Work 79 (1): 31–46. https://doi.org/10.32444/IJSW.2018.80.1.31-46.
Sobantu
14
Noyoo, N. 2010. Social Policy and Human Development in Zambia. London: Adonis and
Abbey.
Noyoo, N., and M. Sobantu. 2019. “Deconstructing and Decolonising Spatiality: Voluntary and
Affordable Housing for a Transforming Johannesburg.” In Reversing Urban Spatiality,
edited by M. T. Myambo, 35–42. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429453304-3.
Oldfield, S., and S. Greyling. 2015. “Waiting for the State: A Politics of Housing in South
Africa.” Environment and Planning 47 (5): 1100–12.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15592309.
Potgieter, M. C. 2007. The Social Work Process: Development to Empower People. Cape
Town: Prentice Hall.
Priemus, H., F. Dieleman, and D. Clapham. 1999. “Current Developments in Social Housing
Management.” Netherlands Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 14 (3): 211–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02496678.
Raniga, T., and N. Ngcobo. 2014. “Economic Experiences of Single Mothers in Bhambayi,
KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.” Social Work/Maatskaplike 50 (4): 516–28.
https://doi.org/10.15270/50-4-389.
RSA (Republic of South Africa). 1996. Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (Act No. 108 of
1996). Pretoria: Government Printers.
RSA (Republic of South Africa). 2008. Social Housing Act, 2008 (Act No. 16 of 2008).
Pretoria: Government Printers.
Ritchie, J., G. E. Lewis, G. Elam, R. Tennant, and N. Rahim. 2014. “Designing and Selecting
Samples.” In Qualitative Research Practice, edited by J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. M. Nicholas
and R. Ormston, 111–145. London: Sage.
Sobantu, M. 2019. “A Model for Enhancing Voluntary Housing Within a Social Development
Approach in South Africa.” PhD thesis, University of Johannesburg.
Sobantu, M. 2021. “Housing and Women’s Rights in Gauteng, South Africa: The Role of
Social Work in Sharpening the Focus.” African Journal of Social Work 11 (1): 23–36.
Sobantu, M., and H. Nel. 2019. “Voluntary Housing Delivery: The Contribution of
Partnerships to the Success of a Community-Based Organisation (WASSUP) in Diepsloot
Low-Income Community, Johannesburg, South Africa.” Maatskaplike Werk/Social Work
55 (3): 284–300. https://doi.org/10.15270/55-3-740.
Stats SA (Statistics South Africa). 2019. Statistical Release: Gross Domestic Product, Second
Quarter 2019. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
Sobantu
15
Strydom, H. 2013. “Ethical Aspects of Research in the Social Sciences and Human Service
Professions.” In Research at Grassroots: For the Social Sciences and Human Service
Professions, edited by A. S. de Vos, H. Strydom, C. B. Fouché and C. S. L. Delport, 113–
132, 4th ed. Cape Town: Van Schaik.
UN (United Nations). 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York: United
Nations.
Zimmerman, M. 1995. “Psychological Empowerment: Issues and Illustrations.” American
Journal of Community Psychology 23 (5): 581–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02506983.
Zimmerman, M., and J. Rappaport. 1998. “Citizen Participation, Perceived Control and
Psychological Empowerment.” American Journal of Community Psychology 16 (5): 725–
50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00930023.
