Outline of the IPT's intervention framework

In 2002 the IPT (Independent Projects Trust) with funding from Atlantic Philanthropies began a Criminal Justice Strengthening Project designed to support transformation of the Criminal Justice sector in KwaZulu-Natal. 

The model was developed by IPT  over a ten year period and in the course of various intervention in a variety of sites. Here is a brief outline of the model we are using with Home Affairs and which is being developed further during the course of the intervention. Over the years we have  learned that a number of key steps are necessary in a project cycle to maximize the successful achievement of the  objectives, namely to close the gap between policy and practice.

The Analytical Framework

These phases can be further explained as follows:

Understanding: This phase involves getting to know the individuals and the relationships within the target organization or department. Our experience has been that one has to understand the systems and processes in the context of  organizational  culture and its social environment in order to provide an  appropriate response, and one  which is in line with organizational strategy and needs. This is time consuming and is a taxing phase where it is necessary to build relationships with people at all levels of the organization.   Because staff change, one often has to go back to the beginning and start building relationships with new staff or people who have been moved within the organization.

However it is only the delivery of this phase that one can provide an intervention which is in line with strategic objectives and has the buy-in and support of a wide range of role players. 

Strategic Alignment :  Following the understanding phase one begins to rescope the project objectives in order to ensure alignment with those of the target organization and to ensure buy-in and support for mutually beneficial outcomes.   This is done by finding areas of synergy, utilizing language to create a coherent strategic environment and proactively identifying opportunities in order to embed the project within existing  in-house programmes and initiatives, for only by doing this can internal policy be translated into daily practice.

Delivery: This is often the most obvious and visible aspect of the project and involves the  provision of workshops and training events, facilitation of processes, and the sourcing of information and skills. In this phase we have often  found that it is best to start small and move on to critical mass. It is during the delivery phase that one begins to see evidence of  increased capacity amongst  recipients and evidence of change.

Adaptation:  As the project gathers momentum there is a constant influx of new groups of  people who impact on project dynamics and,  as each intervention has an effect on the environment,  there is a need for constant review and adaptation. Also  the more work one does, the greater one’s understanding of the environment and so once delivery is underway there is  a need for continuous modification and adjustment in both  project language and activities to suit the varying and changing  environments. What is appropriate in the early stages of a project is not always appropriate later on. This is the key to the responsive nature of IPT and  we can’t emphasise enough the value of  flexibility  and innovation  through the life of the project.

Sustainability:  A successful project requires that systems and structures arising from the intervention become institutionalized within the target organization  and that staff are allocated to the process teams and remain in place.  It is essential  that new processes become an established part of the system.  It is also imperative that coaching  and mentoring is available for  key individuals and  that capacity is built within the organisation to sustain new ways of operating.  Those of us who provide external support should strive to become partners rather than helpers, or trainers delivering one-off workshops.

Critical Reflection: Throughout the project it is vital to spend time reviewing, talking and listening to partners. This critical reflection is used to inform adaptations to strategy and  design future interventions.

The model is cyclic, reflecting the nature of the overall process, and  the end of one process often provides the foundation for the start of a new one. The six sequential steps also recur at various levels within the larger project, especially when an intervention is run within a wide range of environments. However, the sequential description of the process does not exclude movement back and forth between steps during the project, often creating loops within the larger cycle.

Click to view larger image

Click to view larger image

Visit to Musina 3rd and 4th March 2009

IPT is funded by the Atlantic Philanthropies to work in Refugee Reception centres and  Musina is  centre for the processing and documentation of  refugees and migrants from Zimbabwe, the writer visited Musina on the above dates.

Musina is often the  “first stop” for  Zimbabwean migrants who either cross  legally at the border post at Beit Bridge, or across nearby farmland and/or the Limpopo River with the assistance of agents.  The border is  a mere 10 kms away,  and access  is often made easy by  the  porous border and availability of access across the river, or  through gaps in the fence. It is alleged that bribes and money is often paid to “guides” who see migrants  through the border at night. 

A meeting was held on the 3rd March 2009  at the Municipal Offices in Musina, convened by the local Municipal Manager with a plan circulated on Department of Provincial and Local Government letterhead, titled “National Immigration Branch’s Action Plan”.

This document is a record of that meeting.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the removal of the refugees from the showground,  which is situated in the town, to less central venue, with Soutspansberg Military Ground (SMG) as the suggested venue and the circulated plan outlined the activities associated with moving the Zimbabwean refugees.

Present at the meeting was Mr Matsaung from the Immigration Branch, other representatives of local government, as well as representatives from the key humanitarian organizations, IOM, Unicef, MSF, LHR, UNHCR, Save the Children, MLAO, as well as the SAPS  and the SANDF. 

Mr Matsaung explained the need to profile the people living at the showground and sort out who are documented and should now move on and away from Musina,  from  those who still need documenting.   He stressed the need to separate the women and children  from the others, and give them special protection during the process.

Mr Matsaung explained that much of the problem lay with the documented individuals who, because they have some shelter, food and security at the showgrounds, were not moving on as they should.  He also said that the semi permanent nature of the showground had opened up the potential for “slumlords” to rent out sleeping places and shelter and explained that DHA couldn’t allow small children to be sleeping in the open and living like this and asked  that perhaps IOM and other ngos could  help to move them on?

At this point in the meeting the representative from Save the Children left, saying that she had to attend to children who had been  frightened by rumours of the move and  had run away.   Save the Children’s viewpoint was that it was better to have children located at the showground than wandering through the bush and walking to Thoyandou or Machado to live on the streets.

The general reaction from the humanitarian organisations in the room was “you have spurned our help all along and now you want it because you have a big problem”. 

The representative from UNHCR asked for clarity saying that the Government plan was not clear.  Would DHA please give a date for when they would want to move the refugees from showgrounds to SMG?  He also explained that in asking the humanitarian organisations to “help” was asking them to be part of the forced removal, and this contravenes international law and  so they would not participate in such a process.   

Mr Matsaung explained that they had a time frame of 5 days, with the objective of clearing the showgrounds by Friday 6th March.  The aim of the next 2 days would be to profile the people and sort out who has documents and needs to move on, and who needs to be documented.

He again stressed that there are

• Those who want to stay in the Musina area
• Those who are documented and should move on but don’t want to
• Those who want to go back to their country of origin, and
• Those who want to move away to Gauteng or another destination

And he stressed  that women and children must have protection at all times.

He also stressed that DHA would need the help of UNHCR and the IOM to assist with children and that they were hoping for help from SAPS in moving people who want to go back to the border and return to Zimbabwe. 

The SAPS representative explained  that SAPS cannot transport people who are not under arrest as there would be no insurance for them should the vehicle crash, or anyone get injured.   He said he thought that IOM were going to provide buses to transport people  back to the border.

The IOM rep said that they didn’t get authority for buses and so couldn’t help out with that.

The LHR representative  said that a uniformed official from DHA had been scaring children.  Mr Matsaung  asked that someone try to identify him as, if anyone chased or scared children,  they would be dealt with most severely.

Both the DHA and the Municipal Manger repeatedly asked the ngo community for assistance, but the division between the departments and the ngo community was obviously great.  The DHA stressed that they were not talking deportation, but a process of sorting and separating out the various categories of refugees living at the showground as the present  situation could not be allowed to continue.

The SAPS representative claimed that many people enter illegally, not through a border post, and are then “coached” to seek asylum status and he said that SAPS will “stick to the law”. 

Throughout this exchange the UNHCR representative continued to remind all present that the ngo community cannot be involved in forced removal.  That they  can’t  be involved in sending people to farms and that there was a danger in moving them to SMG  that the showground scenario would just be repeated a few kilometers down the road, and all the role players would be involved in the same debate at some point down the line.  He asked that a long term solution be sought.

Mr Matsaung reiterated that DHA could not work alone and needed support from SAPS/Immigration/Social Development/the ngo community in order to assist the people at the showground and find a solution.  To quote him : “we have a problem when people won’t work with us” and “our clients are the guys at the showground”. 

The MLAO representative said that clarity was needed on the new site.   “Who will man it, who will be in charge at SMG?   Will the ngo’s be allowed in?  We need clarity so we can understand our roles”.

The SANDF representative spoke up and  said that, for all the talk about moving to SMG, it belongs to the Army and no one has briefed the army and “according to my Colonel this move has not been approved by the Minister of Defence”.  So a move to SMG will not happen.

The Municipal Manager  continued to claim that approval had been received from the Minister of Defence to move to SMG.

The meeting then dispersed with the ngo community holding a discussion re an attempt to get an urgent application to prevent the dispersal of refugees  from the showgrounds.

Observations :

I attended the meeting as an observer and introduced myself to some of the attendees during the course of the meeting and afterwards so the opinions are my own and formulated over a short time period.  I will group them into headings.

Move from the showgrounds :

By the night of Thursday 5th March people had been removed from the showgrounds.  They had been dispersed through the town and into the surrounding area.  They were not moved to SMG.  The showgrounds will be used as a centre for the mobile DHA vans to process people. 

SMG :

This will continue to be used as a detention centre.

Children and unaccompanied minors :

All parties were concerned about the high number of unaccompanied minors and children in the camp at the showgrounds.  According to the Programme Manager from Save the Children UK these children were dispersed through the town and into the bush and to towns close by. One hundred and fifty children sheltered in the back of her office in Musina.

Lack of collaboration between govt. departments

The DHA has a clear mandate to provide a passport and documentation service to South Africans, as well as foreigners who wish to live or stay in South Africa.  

They are not a humanitarian agency, neither are they a relief agency and they do not have medical or psychological services at their internal disposal.

These services and this support  should be provided by the mandated  government departments like Health, Social Development.

Lack of collaboration between ngo and humanitarian players :

These event seemed to take everyone by surprise and it seemed that the “die was cast” and there was nothing that could have been done to delay the inevitable process of moving the people from the showgrounds.  It clearly illustrated that better  networking might be useful in the future as the same scenario is likely to present itself again.

Declaration as a “disaster” area :

If the Musina crisis was declared a “disaster” it would have been easier to access relief for the affected people. This is contrary to government policy and so is unlikely to happen.  It doesn’t preclude the establishment of an humanitarian centre in the town, which could be manned by the ngo community and also the government departments who have a mandate to provide a service.  

In the short term, this crisis  area has been displaced and it is likely that the refugees will begin to congregate at a new site, which will result in having to move them on again.

The long term prognosis is bleak.   It seems that we are a long way from a workable solution to the Zimbabwe problem, in fact its not beyond possibility that a new waves of  Zimbabwean refugees  seeking protection from violence and intimidation  could seek refuge in South Africa.

There is an urgent need to find a multi agency collaborative solution to this problem working at National level with the mandated departments, as well as encouraging some local level solution like the establishment of a formal reception processing centre in Musina.

Glenda Caine

Click here to download the IPT Refugee Brochure

New Magistrates as prime drivers and players in the change process in Child Justice and the plight of unaccompanied foreign children.