i 
 

PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY RE-UNIFICATION AND AFTERCARE SERVICES FOR 

CHILDREN WITH BEHAVIOURAL PROBLEMS DISCHARGED FROM SCHOOLS OF 

INDUSTRIES 

The Department of Social Work 

School of Human and Community Development 

Faculty of Humanities 

University of the Witwatersrand 

Johannesburg 

In fulfilment of the requirement 

For the Master Degree In Social Work by Research 

 

By 

Tintswalo Shirley Novela 

Student no. 1999085 

June 2022 

Supervisor: Dr Motlalepule Nathane Taulela 

 

 

 



 

i 

 

 

 

DECLARATION 

I, TINTSWALO SHIRLEY NOVELA declare that this research, titled, “Perceptions of family re-

unification and aftercare services for children with behavioural problems discharged from Schools 

of industries,” is my own unaided work and that, by means of complete references, I acknowledged 

all the sources that I used in this study. This research has not been submitted in part or in full for 

any other degree or to any other University locally, regionally, or internationally. 

 

 

 

T.S NOVELA       Date: 22.06.2022 

 

Signature        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

ii 

 

 

 

DEDICATION 

To my late parents (Mphephu Esther Novela & Mbhazima Samuel Novela) who did not live to 

share the success of my studies. My mother was looking forward my graduating for this degree, 

but God called her before she could see the fruits of her prayers. She has been the pillar of my 

strength and encouraged me with the scripture such as, Psalm 27: 10, “Though my father and 

mother forsake me, the LORD will receive me”. 

I also extend my dedication to my children; Talenta, Vukona and Vunene who have endured 

hardships during my studies, but assured me that they were going to persevere, which they did. 

Indeed, you kept me going my kids. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

iii 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

I would like to extend my gratitude to all those who supported me. This journey was not easy but 

through your support, it was possible: 

• To the Most high God, Jehovah El Elyon, without you I cannot do anything. 

• To you my supervisor, Dr Motlalepule Nathane-Taulela, I am deeply thankful for the great 

work you have done. Thank you for your support, guidance, advice, inspirations, and for 

your humble heart. You were like a fountain of strength to me where I drew my strength. 

You gave me support even when storms of life were threatening my career. I salute and 

dedicate you Psalm 46. 

• To my spiritual father, my mentor, and my pastor, Dr R.P. Sambo. It is through your 

inspiration that I registered for this degree with the University of the Witwatersrand. You 

always believed in me; I truly appreciate you.  

• To my spiritual fathers, my mentors, and my pastors, Prophet R.N. Nghonyama and Pastor 

C. Bilankulu. Thank you, saints, for believing in me. Your prayers have sustained me this 

far. 

• To my pastor, my mentor, and my co-worker in the body of Christ, Pastor Thomas Mabasa, 

thank you, man of God for your; support, inspiration, and prayers. You believed in me, and 

you taught me to be optimistic. 

• To my siblings; Morris, Shadrack, Nurse, Lydia, Susan, and Justice, you are a blessing 

indeed. You are the pillar of my strength. 

• To the Buxula family (my nephews and nieces), unity is our slogan. Without you I am lost. 

United we stand! 

• To all of my friends for your continued support and prayers. 

• To the Department of Social Development, Gauteng Province, for granting me the 

opportunity to conduct this study. 



 

iv 

 

 

 

• To the Heads of Institutions of JW Luckhoff CYCC (Mr. Tozama Tshabane) and of 

Emmasdal CYCC (Mrs. Rachel Human), thank you for granting me the opportunity to 

conduct this study. Your support and guidance are highly esteemed. 

• To my colleagues at JW Luckhoff CYCC (Mr. Simphiwe Nzama, Dr Marcia Zikhali and 

all officials in social work unit) who motivated and supported me during this study, thank 

you. 

• To the research participants, thank you all for partaking in this study. Without your 

participation this study would have not been possible. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

v 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENT 

 

DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................................... i 

DEDICATION .............................................................................................................................................. ii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii 

Key words ............................................................................................................................................... xi 

CHAPTER 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 1 

INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 1 

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND .................................................................................. 1 

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY ................................. 3 

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION, GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH STUDY ................ 6 

1.3.1 Research question .......................................................................................................................... 6 

1.3.2. Research goal ............................................................................................................... 6 

1.3.3 Research Objectives ..................................................................................................... 6 

1.4 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 7 

1.5 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS ............................................................................................... 11 

1.6 LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ....................................................................................... 14 

1.7 CONTENTS OF RESEARCH REPORT ......................................................................................... 14 

Chapter 1: Introduction and orientation of the study...................................................... 14 

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review ........................................... 14 

Chapter 3: Research Methodology .................................................................................... 15 

Chapter 4: Presentation and discussion of findings – Part A .......................................... 15 

Chapter 5: Presentation and discussion of findings – Part B .......................................... 15 

Chapter 6: Key findings, Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................... 16 



 

vi 

 

 

 

1.9 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 16 

CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................................... 17 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 17 

2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 17 

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... 17 

2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 20 

2.3.1. Legal framework for family reunification and aftercare services ........................ 20 

2.3.2 African perspective on families ................................................................................. 30 

2.3.3 Families in SA ............................................................................................................. 33 

2.3.4 Overview of School of Industries in SA .................................................................... 34 

2.3.5 Legal matters and reasons for admissions in Schools of Industries ...................... 35 

2.3.6 Behaviour problems in children ................................................................................ 36 

2.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 41 

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................... 43 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 43 

3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 43 

3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................... 43 

3.2.1 Research paradigm ..................................................................................................... 44 

3.2.2 Research Approach .................................................................................................... 44 

3.3.3 Research design........................................................................................................... 45 

3.3.4 Study population, Sample and sampling procedure ............................................... 46 

3.3.5 Research Instrument .................................................................................................. 48 



 

vii 

 

 

 

3.3.6 Pre-testing of research instrument ............................................................................ 49 

3.3.7 Method of data collection ........................................................................................... 50 

3.3.8 Method of data analysis ............................................................................................. 52 

3.4 TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 55 

3.4.1 Validity ........................................................................................................................ 55 

3.4.2. Reliability ................................................................................................................... 56 

3.4.3 Trustworthiness .......................................................................................................... 56 

3.5 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................... 60 

3.5..1 Informed consent ....................................................................................................... 61 

3.5.2 Voluntary participation ............................................................................................. 61 

3.5.4 Confidentiality and anonymity .................................................................................. 62 

3.5.5 Honesty ........................................................................................................................ 62 

3.5.6 Conflict of interest ...................................................................................................... 62 

3.5.8 Publication of the study .............................................................................................. 63 

3.6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 64 

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................... 65 

4.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 65 

4.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE PARTICIPANTS ................................................................ 65 

i. Children......................................................................................................................... 65 

ii. Parents ........................................................................................................................... 67 

4.3 INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWS WITH PARENTS AND CHILDREN (FAMILIES) ...................... 69 



 

viii 

 

 

 

4.3.1 Theme 1: Perceptions of families about family re-unification and aftercare 

services rendered by social workers................................................................................... 70 

4.3.2 Theme 2: Challenges experienced by families during family reunification and 

aftercare services ................................................................................................................. 75 

4.3.3 Theme 3: Conduct of social workers towards their work and families during 

family reunification and aftercare process ........................................................................ 87 

4.3.4 Theme 4: Status of children after discharged from Schools of Industries ............ 96 

4.3.5 Theme 5:  Measures to improve family reunification services ............................... 98 

4.4 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 98 

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................................. 100 

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS FROM SOCIAL WORKERS ......................... 100 

5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 100 

5.2 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF THE PARTICIPANTS ........................................................ 100 

5.3 FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL SOCIAL WORKERS AND 

REFERRAL SOCIAL WORKERS ...................................................................................................... 103 

5.3.1 Theme 6: Social workers understanding about the concept family reunification 

and aftercare services ........................................................................................................ 104 

5.3.2 Theme 7: Knowledge of social workers about policies that guides family 

reunification and aftercare services ................................................................................. 110 

5.3.3 Theme 8: Challenges faced by social workers during family reunification and 

aftercare services ............................................................................................................... 112 

5.3.4 Theme 9:  Factors that led to unsuccessful family reunification .......................... 126 

5.3.5 Status of children after discharge from Schools of Industries ............................. 133 



 

ix 

 

 

 

5.3.6 Theme 11: Perceptions of social workers about family reunification and aftercare 

services. ............................................................................................................................... 135 

5.3.7 Theme 12: Measures to improve family reunification and aftercare services .... 137 

5.4 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 138 

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................................. 140 

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................... 140 

6.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 140 

6.2 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ............................................................................ 140 

Objective 1: To explore the perceptions of social workers, parents, and children about 

family re-unification and aftercare services rendered by government and non-

government organisations (NGOs)................................................................................... 141 

Objective 2: To identify challenges experienced by the social workers and parents 

regarding family re-unification and aftercare services for children with behavioural 

problems. ............................................................................................................................ 143 

Objective 3: To ascertain factors that lead to children seeking re-admission to Schools 

of Industries after discharged. .......................................................................................... 144 

Objective 4: To investigate the knowledge and understanding of social workers about 

family reunification and aftercare services. .................................................................... 145 

Objective 5: To explore from children, parents and social workers the measures that 

can be implemented to improve the family reunification and aftercare services. ....... 146 

6.3 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION .................. 148 

6.3.1 Summary of key findings ......................................................................................... 148 

6.3.2 Recommendations for practice ................................................................................ 150 

6.3.3 Recommendations for future research ................................................................... 152 



 

x 

 

 

 

6.3.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 153 

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................... 155 

APPENDIX A: DEPARTMENTAL HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE CLEARANCE 

CERTIFICATE ......................................................................................................................................... 174 

APPENDIX B: LETTER FROM THE FACULTY OF HUMANITIES (WITS) .................................... 175 

APPENDIX C: PROOF OF EDITING LETTER/CERTIFICATE........................................................... 176 

APPENDIX D: LETTER OF PERMISSION FROM DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT 177 

APPENDIX E: LETTER OF PERMISSION FROM JW LUCKHOFF CYCC ....................................... 178 

APPENDIX F: LETTER OF PERMISSIOM FROM EMMASDAL CYCC ........................................... 179 

APPENDIX G: LETTER OF PERMISSION FROM JOBURG CHILD WELFARE ............................. 180 

APPENDIX H: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET FOR CHILDREN (INDIVIDUAL 

INTERVIEWS) ......................................................................................................................................... 181 

APPENDIX I: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET FOR PARENTS (INDIVIDUAL 

INTERVIEWS) ......................................................................................................................................... 184 

APPENDIX K: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET FOR REFERRAL SOCIAL WORKERS 

(FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW) ............................................................................................................. 189 

APPENDIX L: ASSENT FORM FOR CHILDREN ................................................................................ 192 

APPENDIX M: CONSENT FORM FOR PARENT FOR A CHILD’S PARTICIPATION .................... 193 

APPENDIX N: CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTS ............................................................................... 194 

APPENDIX O: CONSENT FORM FOR RESIDENTIAL SOCIAL WORKERS................................... 195 

APPENDIX P: CONSENT FORM FOR REFERRAL SOCIAL WORKERS ......................................... 196 

APPENDIX Q: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR CHILDREN (individual interview) ........................... 197 

APPENDIX R: INTERVIWE SCHEDULE FOR PARENTS (Individual interviews)………………….199 

APPENDIX S: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR SOCIAL WORKERS (FOCUS GROUP 

INTERVIEWS) ......................................................................................................................................... 201 

 

 

 

 



 

xi 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

Globally, research has highlighted the undesired consequences of prolonging children’s 

placements in institutionalized care. There is strong research evidence that suggests that almost all 

areas of children’s development are greatly affected when they are disconnected from their 

families and placed in institutions. The impact varies from impaired interpersonal and social 

growth, difficulties in establishing secure attachments to care givers, to delayed language and 

cognitive development. In South Africa (SA), Children’s Act (2005) makes provision for the 

children who display uncontrollable behaviour to be removed from their families and placed in a 

Child and Youth Care Center (CYCC) as an alternative care in terms of section 150 (1) (b). Despite 

the legislative recommendation in the different laws aimed at protecting children, SA continues to 

encounter challenges in terms of family reunification and aftercare services. This study aimed to 

explore the perceptions of social workers, parents, and children on family reunification services 

for children with behavioural problems. A qualitative research approach was adopted to collect 

and analyse data that was collected from focus group discussions (FDGs) as well as individual 

interviews. The participants were distributed as; 10 parents and children whose data was collected 

through individual interviews, and six social workers who participated in two separate FDGs. 

Purposive sampling which is a type of non-probability sampling; was used to select the participants 

according to the criteria that was set by the researcher. Thematic data analysis was the method 

used in analyzing data from both the FDGs and individual interviews. Findings in this study 

revealed that family reunification and aftercare services for children with behavioural problems 

discharged from Schools of Industries were ineffective and lacked consistency. This study helped 

to understand the challenges that are experienced by both families and social workers, during 

family reunification process, and it has suggested ways to improve reunification services rendered 

to children with behavioural problems and their families. 

Key words: Family reunification, aftercare services, social worker, Schools of Industries, Child 

and Youth Care Centre (CYCC), institution and behavioural problem



 

1 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION AND ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY 

1.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) acknowledges children as 

rights carriers and it places responsibilities on their parents or families and the states to protect 

those rights (Hall, Richter, Mokomane & Lake, 2018). According to UNCRC article 181, states 

must provide proper assistance to legal guardians and parents to perform their responsibilities and 

must ensure the establishment of facilities, institutions, and services for the care of children (UN 

General Assembly, 1989). Furthermore, families as the society’s central groups, and natural 

environments for the development and well-being of children; must be given necessary support 

and protection. This will ensure that families can fully adopt their responsibilities on protecting 

the rights of the children within the communities (UNICEF, 2015). It is estimated that 7.2 million 

children universally, are residing in institutions such as Temporary safe care, Children’s Homes, 

Schools of industries and Secure care Centres (Desmond et al., 2020). Hope and Homes (2016) 

reported that it is difficult to find a precise number of all children that are living in institutions 

because some of the children are placed in unregistered institutions.  

Based on recorded statistics, an estimation of 650 000 to 1.38 million children in sub-Saharan 

Africa and 286 000 children in Eastern and Southern Africa are living in institutions (Frimpong-

Manso, 2021). Children are placed in institutional care because of various reasons. However, while 

in institutional care, children are faced with various hostilities. Commonly, children in institutional 

care experience behavioural problems, lack of life skills, developmental delays, attachment 

difficulties, difficulty forming and maintaining healthy relationships. Literature is enormously 

suggesting institutional care to be a last option for children who were separated from their parents. 

As such, literature strongly advocate for reintegration, deinstitutionalisation, and provision of 

additional support to families whensoever probable, as the best intervention (Browne, 2017).   



 

2 

 

 

 

In 2004, the African Union (AU) approved a Plan of Action on the Family in Africa, to offer a 

direction to member states in developing national structures, policies, and programmes to respond 

to challenges that are faced by African families (African Union, 2004). In the Union’s perspective, 

‘the family can be viewed in three dimensions, which are; (1) as a psycho-biological unit, where 

members are connected by blood ties, emotional bonds, relationships and kinship feelings, (2) as 

a social unit, where members live together in the same family and allocated tasks and social 

functions, and (3) as the basic economic production unit, where members depend on families for 

financial support (African Union, 2004 pp 2-3). Therefore, in many African cultures, kinship care 

is continuing since pre-colonial times up to date, through which children who are abandoned, 

orphaned or without parental care, are cared for by other extended family members or relatives 

(Assim, 2013; Biemba et al., 2010).  

A Child and Youth Care Centre (CYCC) is defined in the Children’s Act as, “… a facility for the 

provision of residential care to more than six children outside the child’s family environment in 

accordance with a residential care programme suited for the children in the facility” (Children’s 

Act, 2005, p.132). Section 196 of the Act further classified different types of CYCCs and the types 

of residential programmes that must be rendered in court order, to meet the needs of children that 

are admitted in those CYCCs. These CYCCs include; temporary safe care, secure care facility, 

Children’s Homes and Schools of Industries. What distinguish these CYCCs are the type of 

programmes that are rendered to address a need that would have led to the admission of a child in 

terms of Section 191 of the Children’s Act. Prior to 2012, a School of Industries, which is one of 

the types of CYCCs, offered educational and skills development programmes. Facilities were 

classified as places of safety, children’s homes, shelters for children on the streets, schools of 

industry, reform schools or secure care facilities. These classifications were based on the type of 

children being accommodated, and also restricted Centres in terms of the programmes they could 

offer. Such classifications are no longer recognised in the Children’s Act. However, they are 

referred to in this chapter because they are still in use on the ground and because the most recent 

studies providing data on CYCCs used them in their data collection and analysis. According to the 

Children’s Act (2005) section 192 (2) (i), the School of Industries renders programmes for children 



 

3 

 

 

 

with; behavioural, emotional, and psychological problems.  As such, South Africa’s Department 

of Social Development established two Schools of Industries in Gauteng Province, to respond to 

the mandate by the Children’s Act, and the society’s demands to admit children with behavioural 

problems (verbally confirmed by M. Mogashoa (2019), pers.comm.,10 July). The norms and 

standards of CYCC stipulate the types of residential programmes that should be offered to children. 

These are, Section (194) (i) family reunification and reintegration, and Section (194) (j) aftercare 

services. This implies that family reunification and aftercare services must be rendered to children 

and families when a child is admitted in a residential facility. Therefore, this study focused on 

family reunification and aftercare services that are rendered to children with behavioural problems 

after they are discharged from Schools of Industries. 

 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY 

Globally, placing children in institutions of care is regarded as a temporary, not a permanent 

solution. This means that when the child is admitted in an institution, there should be a permanency 

or exit plan. In SA, the Children’s Act no. 38 of 2005 states clearly that the Institution or CYCC’s 

placement is temporal not permanent. This implies that when the child is admitted in a CYCC, 

family reunification services should be initiated immediately. Section 159 of the Children’s Act 

states that the maximum period of placement of a child in a CYCC must be two years.  However, 

this is not always the truth in SA, because many children stay in institutions more than the required 

period (Hope and Homes SA, 2016).  

Lengthy periods of time in institutional care can result to loss of family bonds, a sense of identity, 

and children may find it difficult to transition out of institutionalised care (Pecora et al., 2005). 

The report from the children who have been discharged and those who are in the residential care 

shows that residential care, particularly when used as a long-term solution, can hinder children’s 

normal developmental procedures, and is a negative experience for many children (Save the 

children, 2003). Family reunification services must start promptly after the child is admitted in the 

institution, and efforts must be made to strengthen family responsibility (Pecora et al., 2005). 



 

4 

 

 

 

When the child is removed, the main goal is to address the circumstances in his or her family and 

then reunify him or her with the biological parents (Potgieter & Hoosain, 2018). 

In south Africa, Challenges that are faced with reunification and aftercare services include lack of 

support, family contacts, early intervention and family strengthening programmes. Furthermore, 

when the children exit the institution, there may be; lack of support or aftercare services by the 

practitioners, stigma in the community for children with behavior problems whereby they are 

labelled negatively. There may also be a lack of standardization of family reunification 

programmes or consistency in the implementation of the services by different organizations (Hope 

and Homes SA, 2016; Sauls & Esau, 2015; UNICEF, 2015). It has also been observed that when 

re-admission fails, some of the children end-up in the streets or in prisons.  

Additionally, in SA, children with behavioral problems usually stay long in the institutions due to 

inability of parents to cope with the behavior at home. Some parents terminate contact with their 

children completely whilst their children are in the Schools of Industries. Lack of contact with 

families was perceived to be the main challenge to children and most of them resort to misbehavior 

to attract attention from their families. Similar conclusions were drawn by Ogundele (2018), who 

argued that behaviour challenges on children and young people may possibly produce undesirable 

responses from many parents, resulting in an improper controlling strategy and reduced positive 

relations.  

Few research has been conducted on family reunification and aftercare services in SA, especially 

for children with emotional and behavioral problems. Based on the researcher’s field experience, 

caring for children with behavioral problems require special skills and specific programmes to 

holistically meet the needs of those children. In an informal interview with children who were 

discharged from a School of Industries, seeking for re-entry, they reported that their parents 

complained about their behavior at home. The parents were reported to had verbalized that they 

could not continue to stay with the children at home. Some of the children were driven out of their 

homes by their parents due to persistent behavior challenges. Some children felt that their parents 

did not understand them, they reported that their parents complained about every little thing that 



 

5 

 

 

 

they did, or they will have something to blame on them unnecessarily. Therefore, children could 

not bear the treatment that they received from their parents; hence, they were seeking re-admission 

to the Schools of Industries, or to stay in the streets.  

It was also observed that during long holidays, parents could not cope with their children at home, 

as a result, parents themselves took their children back to the institution before the stipulated period 

lapsed. Out of frustration, on the return, some parents did not follow proper procedures of handing 

over the child to the officials, they just left the children at the gate without any supervision. Some 

parents disowned their own children and left the responsibilities to the institution. Those 

observations then led to the researcher’s interest to explore the perceptions of social workers, 

parents and children, about the reunification services rendered to children with behavioural 

problems and their families. The researcher felt that there was a need for research to address this 

issue. She was of the view that families of these children need support and resources to assist them 

to cope with the children and to participate maximally on family reunification services.  

Therefore, this study is significant in that, it has investigated family reunification and aftercare 

services with specific reference to children with behavioural problems and their families. The 

study intended to investigate the perceptions of social workers, parents, and children on family re-

unification, and aftercare services to families of children with behavioural problems. It also 

examined the challenges that are faced when reunifying children with behavioural problems. 

Furthermore, the study explored the possible solutions that can be implemented to prevent re-

admissions or re-entry of children who were already discharged from the institutions, particularly 

Schools of Industries. The findings from this study will be shared with the Department of Social 

Development (DSD) through the submission of the final report, presentation of the study during 

social work forums, supervisors’ forums, and social work practice seminars where the researcher 

will request a platform to present the study. The findings will help to improve family reunification 

services that are rendered to children with behaviour problems and their families. 



 

6 

 

 

 

1.3. RESEARCH QUESTION, GOAL AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH STUDY 

1.3.1 Research question  

The main research requestion in this study is: “What are the perceptions of  family re-unification 

and aftercare services rendered to the families of discharged children with behavioural problems”? 

1.3.2. Research goal 

The goal of this study was to explore the perceptions of social workers, parents and children about 

family re-unification and aftercare services to the families of discharged children with behavioural 

problems.   

1.3.3 Research Objectives  

The objectives of the study were: 

• To explore the perceptions of social workers, parents, and children about family re-

unification and aftercare services rendered by government and non-government 

organisations (NGOs). 

• To identify challenges experienced by the social workers and parents regarding family re-

unification and aftercare services for children with behavioural problems.  

• To ascertain factors that lead to children seeking re-admission to Schools of industries after 

discharged. 

• To investigate the knowledge and understanding of social workers about family 

reunification and aftercare services. 

• To explore from children, parents, and social workers the measures that can be 

implemented to improve the family reunification and aftercare services. 



 

7 

 

 

 

1.4 OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

Methodology is defined as the philosophical framework within which a study is conducted or the 

basis upon which the research is grounded (Brown, 2006). O’Leary (2004, p.85) describes 

methodology as, “… the framework which is associated with a particular set of paradigmatic 

assumptions that we will use to conduct our research”. There are essential elements of research 

paradigm, which talks to how the researcher sees and interprets the world. Research paradigm is 

the perspective, or thinking, or school of thought, or set of shared beliefs that enlightens the 

meaning interpretative of research data (Kuvunja & Kuyini, 2017).  

Qualitative researchers apply various interpretive paradigms to address the assumptions such as 

positivist, postpositivist, critical, constructivist, and feminist-poststructuralism (Denzin & Lincoln, 

2005). The researcher in this study applied the interpretative paradigm. Interpretative paradigm is 

an approach that makes efforts to, “… get into the head of the subjects being studied to understand 

and interpret what the subject is thinking or the meaning that they are making about the content” 

(Kuvunja & Kuyini, 2017, p.30). In this regard, the emphasis is placed on understanding the 

individuals and how they interpret the world around them. In the context of this study, the 

researcher explored the views and perceptions of the participants through face-to-face individual 

and group interviews, to try and understand their experiences during family reunification process 

for children with behavioural problems discharged from schools of industries. Also, the researcher 

applied honesty and objectivity during data collection and analysis as elements in interpretative 

paradigm. 

This study employed the qualitative research approach. This approach tries to enhance 

understanding of what exactly happened to the participants, what made them take certain decisions, 

and how those choices influenced them (Yin, 2015). Kalu and Byalwa (2017, p.51) outlined the 

following strengths of qualitative research: 

1. Qualitative research promotes the understanding of human experiences and situation, 

individual cultures, beliefs, and values; and 



 

8 

 

 

 

2. The ability of the researcher to systematically demonstrate transparency and accountability 

throughout the whole research process, which is done through constant reflexivity in the 

decision made regarding all elements used in the research (Kalu & Bwalya, 2017). 

In order to ensure trustworthiness in the current study, the researcher followed the recommended 

guidelines that included credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, transparency, 

accountability, and reflexivity. The researcher in the current study accounted for all processes and 

decisions that she made throughout the research process. Qualitative approach was best appropriate 

in this study because the researcher aimed to explore the experiences of children, parents and social 

workers on family reunification and aftercare services for children with behavioural problems and 

were discharged from the Schools of Industries. Within the qualitative research method, a case 

study was used in this study. A case study is, “… a qualitative approach which the investigator 

explores a bounded system or multiple bounded systems over time through detailed, in-depth data 

collection involving multiple sources of information and reports, a case description and case-

based themes” (Creswell et al., 2007, p.73).  A case study helps the researcher to gather more 

information, which prevent biasness and promotes credibility in the research (Yin, 2003; Marshall 

& Rossman, 2014). In a case study, there is a single case study and multiple case studies. 

According to Baxter and Jack (2008), the evidence obtained from a multiple case study is strong 

and reliable as compared to a single case study. In addition, Gustafsson (2017) suggested that 

multiple case study allows a wider discovering of theoretical evolution and research questions. It 

is this reason that the researcher for the current study employed a multiple case study approach, to 

collect data from multiple sources, that is; children, parents, residential social workers, and referral 

social workers.  

In this study, the research population was all the DSD social workers, all the NGO social workers, 

all children who were discharged from the Schools of Industries, and all parents of children who 

were discharged from the Schools of Industries. The research population refers to the total set of 

cases from which the research sample is selected (Taherdoost, 2016). Sampling in a qualitative 

study assists the researcher to identify persons or localities rich in information and can be studied 



 

9 

 

 

 

in much depth (Marshall & Rossman 2014). Purposeful sampling as a form of non-probability 

sampling was used to identify participants who met the criteria as set by the researcher, and the 

sampling consisted of 16 participants. The participants were distributed as follows; 5 children, 5 

parents, 3 residential social workers (from DSD) and 3 referral social workers (2 from DSD and 1 

from NGO). In a qualitative inquiry, purposeful sampling is a general approach used. It aims to 

identify participants who share similar experiences of a central phenomenon of study (Patton, 

2015; Thorne, 2016). 

The research instrument that was used in collecting data on this study was a semi-structured 

interview schedule. By using a semi-structured interview, a researcher is able to engage people in 

order to understand what they have experienced, and what they think and feel about something 

studied (Miles & Gilbert, 2005). The researcher found semi-structured interview questions more 

appropriate in this study to explore the perceptions of children, parents, and social workers about 

family reunification and aftercare services for children with behavioural problems, after being 

discharged from the School of Industries. Also, it allowed the researcher to probe using open-

ended questions. Prior to the actual data collection process, the researcher conducted a pilot study 

to test the research instruments. Revisions were then made using the feedback from the pilot study. 

Data was collected through face-to-face individual interviews and focus group discussions 

(FGDs). According to Kula and Bwalya (2017), this stage is more significant qualitative research 

process. At this stage, the researcher needs to think about type of methodology that they adopt, 

and the specific techniques that they use for data collection. Such a reflection will need to question 

the suitability of the methods in answering their research question(s) and the role that their 

presence as a researcher will play in the whole data collection process. According to Fox (2006), 

face-to-face interviews can be a best way of collecting high quality data, and it offers a greater 

degree of flexibility. It helps to simplify questions, correct confusions, offer prompts, probe replies 

and follow up on new ideas (Fox, 2006).  

The researcher in this study employed both individual and FGDs.  Individual interviews are useful 

in accumulating detailed information about the meaning of an event or social context for each 



 

10 

 

 

 

participant in a setting (Fox, 2006). Fox (2006) further mentioned that individual interviews help 

to ensure anonymity, confidentiality, and enables privacy. In the context of the current study, 

individual interviews were conducted with children, and their parents separately. This technique 

was considered to be more appropriate in this study because of the sensitive nature of the topic for 

both; parents and children. Individual interviews were also, more relevant to the children in 

ensuring their privacy. This study was conducted during national lockdown, the researcher had to 

ensure that COVID-19 protocols were observed during data collections in both the individual and FGDs 

interviews i.e., 1.5 social distancing, wearing of masks and hand sanitiser (which was supplied by the 

researcher), sanitisation happened  after every 20 minutes and there was a timer as a reminder), there was 

no hugging, shaking of hands and sharing of items. 

 

Two separate FDGs were conducted with social workers. FDGs are important in obtaining several 

perspectives about the same topic (Gibbs, 1997). In addition, Morgan (1997) states that unlike 

group interviewing, FDGs rely on the interaction within the group based on the topics that are 

supplied by the researcher. Furthermore, FDGs are proven to allow the researcher to gather 

enormous information in a shorter timeframe (Gibbs, 1997). The use of face-to-face individual 

interviews and FDGs in this study enabled the researcher to accumulate rich, thick and detailed 

information from the participants. 

Data was examined using thematic data analysis. According to Maguire and Delahunt (2017), 

thematic analysis is a process of identifying patterns or themes in qualitative data. The goal of this 

method is to identify important or interesting patterns in the data and use these themes to address 

the research or say something about an issue (Maguire & Delahunt, 2017). It affords the researcher 

to analyse and present rich, detailed and complex data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The researcher in 

this study used a six-phase guide for thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006). The six-phase 

guide that was followed, as proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) involved; (1) familiarising 

yourself with data, (2) generating initial codes, (3) searching for themes, (4) reviewing the themes, 

(5) defining, and (6) naming themes and producing this dissertation. The researcher found thematic 

analysis as appropriate in this study because it is flexible, clear and usable. Furthermore, it allowed 



 

11 

 

 

 

the researcher to observe similarities and differences on the data that was collected from the study. 

Thematic data analysis also allowed the researcher to identify and discover new things using 

interpretations. 

Throughout the research process, the researcher was bounded by the ethical issues. According to 

Polit and Beck (2010) and Neuman (2011), research can present risks to participants and the 

researcher; therefore, the researcher has an obligation to ensure that their and participants’ 

wellbeing is safeguarded throughout the research process. Because this research involved human 

participants, the researcher first obtained an ethical clearance from the Human Research Ethics 

Committee at the University of Witwatersrand (clearance no. H20/10/22), which was followed by 

the written permissions from; DSD, Emmasdal CYCC, JW Luckhoff CYCC and Joburg Child 

Welfare. Additionally, as a social service practitioner who is registered in terms of the Social Work 

Act 110 of 1978, the researcher was guided by the SACSSP code of ethics. Furthermore, as per 

research ethics, the researcher was guided by the following ethical considerations; informed 

consent, voluntary participation, no harm, confidentiality, honesty, conflicts of interest and 

publication of the study. The ethical considerations will be further discussed in section 3.7. 

1.5 DEFINITION OF KEY CONCEPTS 

The key concepts relevant in this study are defined as follows: 

Aftercare – refers to supportive services provided by a social worker or a social service 

professional to monitor progress regarding the child’s developmental adjustment. These consists 

of the following. 

a. Family preservation or re-unification services.  

b. Adoption or placement in an alternative care. 

c. Lastly, discharge from alternative care’ (Children’s Act, 2005 p.18). 

Behavioural problems – Any abnormal pattern of behaviour which is above the expected norm 

for age and level of development. They can include physical or verbal aggression, self-injury, non-



 

12 

 

 

 

compliance, inappropriate vocalisations, disruption of the environment, and various stereotypes 

(Ogundele, 2018 p.). 

Child –A person under the age of 18 years (Children’s Act, 2005p. 19). 

Child and Youth Care Centre (CYCC) – A facility for the provision of residential care to more 

than six children outside the child’s family environment in accordance with a residential care 

programme suited for the children in the facility (Children’s Act, 2005 p.20) 

Designated social worker – ‘… a social worker in the service of the Department or Provincial 

Department of Social Development, a designated child protection organisation or a municipality’ 

(Children’s Act, 2005 p.21). In this study, designated social worker is also referred to as a referral 

social worker, external social worker or case manager. 

Family – According to White Paper for Families (2013), a family refers to a societal group that is 

related by blood (kinship), ties of marriage (civil, customary or religious), or the civil union, 

cohabitation, adoption, or foster care, and it goes beyond a particular physical residence. 

Family re-unification – involves strengthening families to be able to care and protect their family 

members through the implementation of a reunification care and permanency plan (Guidelines on 

reunification services for families, 2012). 

Parental Contact – Parents maintaining personal relationships with their child. If the child lives 

with someone else, parental contact means communication with the child on a regular basis, 

including visiting the child, or being visited by the child, or communication through the post, by 

telephone or any other form of electronic communication (National Child Care and Protection 

Policy, 2019). 

School of Industries – A Child and Youth Care Centre that was established in terms of section 33 

of Children’s Protection Act 25 of 1913 and maintained in terms of section 195 of the Children’s 

Act no. 30 of 2005. It provides residential care programmes in terms of section 191 (2) (i): - 



 

13 

 

 

 

‘Secure care of children with behavioural, psychological and emotional difficulties' (Children’s 

Act, 2005 p. 132). 

In this study, School of Industries can also be referred as institution, Centre or ‘School’. 

Acronyms  

AACAP-American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry  

ACRWRC- African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child 

ADHD- Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 

CCA- Child Care Act 

CD- Conduct Disorder 

CRC- Convention on the Rights of the child 

CYCC- Child and Youth Care Centre 

DBD- Disruptive Behaviour Disorders 

DSD- Department of Social Development 

DSM-V- Diagnostic Statistical Manual (5th edition) 

FAMSA- Family and Marriage Society of South Africa 

LOA- Leave of absence 

MHD- Mental Health Disorder 

NGO- Non-Governmental Organisation  

ODD- Oppositional Defiant Disorder 

RSA- Republic of South Africa 

SACSSP- South Africa Council for Social Service Profession 

SANCA- The South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence 

SSP- Social Service Profession 

UNICEF- United Nations Children’s Fund 

UNCRC- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child  

USAID- United States Agency for International Development  

WHO- World Health Organisation 



 

14 

 

 

 

WPF- White Paper on Families 

1.6 LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS 

• This study was bounded to geographical area which is, Gauteng Province. It did not include 

other provinces in SA. Therefore, the findings from this study do not include the whole 

South African population. 

• There are limited legislations on families internationally, regionally and locally, which 

resulted in a researcher using more of indirect policies. 

• Due to the limited number of social workers in the Schools of Industries, the researcher 

had to include one social worker from her own institution. However, she respected the 

power imbalances throughout the research process and ensured that there was no conflict 

of interest as she is the supervisor at JW Luckhoff CYCC. Also, interviews were conducted 

with multiple samples, that is; children, parents and social workers to ensure that the 

researcher is not biased in the study. 

1.7 CONTENTS OF RESEARCH REPORT 

Chapter 1: Introduction and orientation of the study 

This chapter provides an overview of the current study. The chapter provides; the background of 

the study, problem statement and rationale of the study, aim and objectives of the study, overview 

of research methodology, definition of key concepts and acronyms, and, lastly, it discussed the 

limitations and delimitations of the study.  

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 

This chapter starts by discussing the theoretical framework underpinning the current study, 

followed by a literature review whose scope covered; internationally, regionally, and locally, as 

per literature’s relevance to the topic understudy. Different types of families in South Africa were 

discussed and contextualised within this study. This was followed by; an overview of Schools of 



 

15 

 

 

 

Industries in South Africa, and legal matters relating to the admissions of children in the Schools 

of Industries. Lastly, the behaviour of the children (which is also referred to challenging behaviour 

in this study) was discussed, followed by the causes and risk factors, interventions, and their impact 

on family reunification and aftercare services. 

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 

This chapter starts by discussing the research paradigm, which was followed by the research 

approach and research design. Sampling and sampling procedures, research instrument, pre-testing 

of the research instrument, method of data collection, and method of data analysis were also 

discussed. The elements of trustworthiness, thus, validity, reliability, credibility, transferability, 

dependability, confirmability, and reflexibility were discussed. The researcher concludes by 

discussing the ethical principles that were applied in this study. 

Chapter 4: Presentation and discussion of findings – Part A 

This chapter presents empirical findings from families, that is, children and parents, which is 

followed by the demographic profile of families. Data was presented using quotations from 

participants, and findings were contextualised. Themes and sub-themes were summarised in a 

table, and later discussed to make the findings. The researcher also referred to literature in 

discussing the findings.  

Chapter 5: Presentation and discussion of findings – Part B 

This chapter presents empirical findings for social workers, that is, residential and referral social 

workers, followed by their demographic profiles. A table was presented to summarise the themes 

and sub-themes, which were later discussed, and contextualised to make findings of the study. 

Direct quotes from the participants were used to present data. Findings were emerged with 

reference to the literature. 



 

16 

 

 

 

Chapter 6: Key findings, Conclusions and Recommendations 

 This chapter summarise the findings that are fully discussed in chapters 4 and 5. The researcher 

started by recapping the objectives of the study. The researcher then discussed the objectives with 

reference to the findings of the study. Using this study’s findings from families, the researcher also 

highlighted the similarities and differences of social workers. The chapter concludes with a 

discussion of the key findings, conclusions and recommendations to be considered in SA, on 

family reunification and aftercare services for children with behavioural problems. The 

recommendations were made to improve the services to families, concerning reunification and 

aftercare for children with behavioural problems. 

1.9 CONCLUSION 

This chapter provided an overview of this thesis. The chapter respectively provided this study’s; 

background, problem statement and rationale, goal and objectives, overview of research 

methodology, definition of relevant key concepts and acronyms. Throughout the study, ethical 

considerations were ensured by the researcher, and lastly the limitations and delimitations were 

discussed in this chapter. 

 

 

 

 

 



 

17 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2 

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter firstly discusses the theoretical framework that is underpinning this study, followed 

by the literature review which is arranged in a manner that it discusses the literature that is relevant 

for this study; internationally, regionally, and locally. The literature review provides an overall 

discussion on families in SA. It then provides an overview of; Schools of Industries in SA, and 

legal matters relating to the admissions of children in these schools. Lastly, the literature review 

turned to focus the discussion on the behaviours of children, causes and risk factors, interventions, 

and their impact on family reunification and aftercare services 

2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 

This study was steered by the bio-ecological systems theory. Bronfenbrenner (1977) is at the 

forefront of the bio-ecological systems theory. Using the theory, Bronfenbrenner (1977) viewed a 

child’s development as a system that requires a multifaceted structures, mutual efforts, that are 

shaped by several components of the natural environment;  starting from the immediate family and 

school to wider societal or cultural principles, laws and customs Guy-Evans (2020). “Because the 

five systems are interconnected, the influence of one system on child’s development rests on its 

relationship with others” (Guy- Evans, 2020, p.1). He explained the systems as follows: 

1. Microsystem 

Microsystem refers to things that have direct interaction with the child in the immediate 

environment such as family, peers, school, and community. If a child has a solid parent and child 

relationship, this is reported to produce a positive outcome on the child. Whereas unaffectionate 

and distant parents will have a negative outcome on the child. In contrast, Family for Every Child 

(2014) stated that, family care has the fundamental effect on a child’s welfare and growth. 



 

18 

 

 

 

In the context of the current study, using Bronfenbrenner’s microsystem the researcher views the 

family as having a crucial role to play in the development and the progress of the child; even when 

the child is removed from the family’s physical environment, and placed in an alternative care. 

Family contacts will play a vital role in family reunification process. Furthermore, children may 

be placed in institutions or CYCC, not only because of their own behavioural problems alone, but 

because of certain behavioural trends within the family system (DSD, 2012). This also implies that 

when working with children with behavioural problems, focus should be to help the entire family, 

instead of solely working with the child. Parents need to be capacitated with relevant skills to 

address issues that are affecting them and their children. In support, Potgieter and Hoosain (2018) 

suggested that the environment and family circumstances should be taken into consideration to 

guarantee that reunification is in the best interest of the child.  

2. The Mesosystem 

Mesosystem includes the interconnection between the child and the microsystem. (Guy-Evans, 

2020). Practical example of mesosystem include the parents interacting with the school (teachers), 

peers and neighbours regarding the child. Mesosystem plays a significant role in the child’s 

development in terms of socialization. In the context of this study, the interactions or 

collaborations between the parents, and the educators are crucial to ensure effective family 

reunification services in that educators also form part of the MDT in institutions, and they also 

observe the behaviours of the children at school.  

3. The Exosystem 

 According to Guy-Evans (2020), the Exosystem includes other formal and informal structures 

such as; extended family members, social services, government agencies, and parents’ economic 

situation. In the context of this study, successful family reunification, and aftercare services for 

children with behavioural problems are viewed as requiring an integrated approach which involves 

various stakeholders from both governmental and non-governmental structures. Additionally, 

extended family members play a crucial role as a support system to the parents of a child, and in 

the absence of that child’s biological parents. 



 

19 

 

 

 

4. The macrosystem- 

According to Guy-Evans (2020), on the macrosystem concerns the ways that cultural elements 

affect a child’s growth, for example, ethnicity, socio-economic status, wealth and poverty.  In the 

context of this study, amongst the other factors, it is also observed that most children that are 

admitted in CYCCs originate from poor family background, economically and educationally. This 

is supported by the employment status of parents in this study as discussed in table 4.1. According 

to the revised White Paper on families (2021), most families in South Africa are confronted by 

unemployment and poverty. These exert more strain on the economic provision for the household. 

This was confirmed by Stats SA (2020), that revealed that the unemployment rate in SA in 2020, 

was the highest since 2008. The 2019 SA stats shows that the main source of income for many SA 

households was income or grants. According to the researcher’s observations, this economic status 

also affects family reunification services especially when the parents had to make contacts with 

their children in the institution. 

5. The chronosystem 

The chronosystem includes all ecological changes that occur over life and influence the child’s 

growth. The ecological changes of reference here include; major life transitions, and historical 

events such as; divorce, death and separation (Guy-Evans (2020). These family events or 

circumstances, including; conflict, poverty, child’s feelings of anxiety, death in the family, and 

divorce of parents, may cause emotional and behavioural problems on children (Behere, Basnet & 

Campbell, 2017; Family Pediatrics Report, 2003).   

 In the context of this study, there is evidence that some of the factors that yield to children 

developing behavioural problems are the distraction in their known family structure, owing to; the 

death of parent(s), divorce or separation. For family reunification to be effective, one cannot solely 

focus on the child’s circumstances. This is because the child’s circumstances are influenced by 

other systems that comprise; parents, extended family members, designated social workers, 

CYCC, and other community structures. These systems are interrelated and influence each other. 



 

20 

 

 

 

For the purpose of this study, causes and risk factors of behavioural problems were discussed in 

this chapter (see 2.3.5.1). The section shows that factors such as family circumstances, family 

history, and socio-psychological factors contribute to influencing behavioural problems on 

children. 

2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW  

According to Ritchie et al. (2013), it is significant to apply the theory in all research practice, but 

it is more vital in qualitative research. Furthermore, in qualitative research, theory serves as an 

initial guide. For example, the adoption of research design, which guides the process of data 

collection as well as the nature of data that the researcher aims to collect and how that data will be 

analysed (Ritchie et al., 2013). The purpose of the literature review is to examine the current state 

of knowledge to be investigated, to identify key authors, articles, theories, and findings in that 

area, and to identify gaps in knowledge in that research area (Bhattacharjee, 2012). Bhattacharjee 

(2012), further explained that a well conducted literature review “should specify whether the initial 

research questions have already been addressed in the literature, whether there are newer or more 

interesting research questions existing and whether the original research questions should be 

revised or altered considering findings reported in the reviewed literature” (p.21). In this study, 

the literature review was conducted using books, research articles and journals, individual 

conversations, theses, unpublished manuscripts, and web pages. 

2.3.1. Legal framework for family reunification and aftercare services 

2.3.1.1 International obligations 

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) preamble states that the 

family is “a fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-

being of children” (UNCRC, 1989, p.1). UNCRC (1989) further argued that families should be 

given the required support and protection so that they can entirely undertake their full 

responsibilities on children within the society (p.1). Therefore, excessive hard work should be 

made to reintegrate or reunify millions of children, who are removed from their families, and 



 

21 

 

 

 

communities globally. These children need to be reintegrated with their families and into 

communities (Inter-agency group, 2016). Although family reintegration is viewed as one of the 

strategies to create a sense of belonging on the child, the UNCRC recognises the best interest of 

the child to be considered.  

In Europe, critical thinking and provision around family support are relatively well advanced. 

Generally, family support has been conceived as; the provision of services for families in need. 

Family need is defined relative to functionality, relationship problems and child risk. Social work 

has been a predominant profession in the provision of family support services, especially casework 

(Hall et al., 2018). In a study conducted in England by Neil, Gitsels and Thoburn (2019), on 2,208 

children who entered the care between 2009-2015, 802 (36%) of the children were returned home. 

Out of the 802 who were reunified, 199 (25%) of children re-entered the care after reunification. 

Reasons for children re-entering care after reunification included inadequate parenting or further 

maltreatment, and lack of support to families. Another research that was conducted in the UK 

indicated that, 47% of children came back into care after reunification, and family support services 

were the major reason for unsuccessful reunification (Farmer, Stugess, O’ Neill, & Wijedasa, 

2011). 

In Columbia, the inter-agency group on Children’s reintegration was established in 2011 in 

accordance with the UNCRC 1989, to research and to promote practices for supporting family 

reintegration after realising that there was a gap on family reunification. Upon consultation with 

other stakeholders, the inter-agency group developed guidelines on children’s integration. The 

guidelines aimed to explore cross-cutting principles of good practice on children’s integration and 

provide guidance on programme design for working with; children, families, schools, and 

communities. The primary aim was on the child’s protection (Inter-agency Group, 2016). The 

guidelines insisted that efforts should be directed towards reintegration, children should be central 

of reintegration in that their voices should be heard, and their best interest should be prioritized 

during intervention. They should be fully engaged in each stage of the process. It also emphasised 

the issue of family support for successful reintegration (Inter-agency Group, 2016). The guidelines 



 

22 

 

 

 

further provided the stages in the integration process which are; tracing, assessment and planning, 

preparation of children and families, child’s initial contact with family and reunification, post 

reunification support and case closure. 

2.3.1.2 Legal frameworks and obligations in Africa 

The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) article 19 (2) states that 

“every child who is separated from one or both parents shall have the right to maintain personal 

relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, and the separation should serve 

the best interest of the child” (p.7). It also recognizes that the family as fundamental to a child’s 

development and requires the state to support and protect families as an essential structure in the 

society (Organisation of African Unity, 1990).  The Plan of Action on the Family in Africa which 

was adopted by the African Union Assembly (formerly called Organisation of Africa Unity) of 

Heads of State and Government in July 2004 was meant to serve as an advocacy instrument for 

strengthening family units, addressing their needs, improving their general welfare, and enhancing 

the life chances of family members. It also aimed at guiding and strengthening Member States’ 

capacities in developing appropriate national structures, policies, programmes and capacities for 

addressing key priorities relating to family issues and challenges in Africa (African Union, 2012). 

In Malawi, the Ministry of Gender, children, Disability and social welfare (MOGCDSW) 

conducted a study on reintegration in 2014. The report shows a decreased number of children in 

institutional care in 2017, from 10,136 in 2014 to 8,049. The decrease was as a result of 

reintegration programme that was executed, and the closure of some childcare institutions due to 

financial problems. The results of the study by (UNICEF, 2019) identified factors that lead to 

successful reintegration. These factors are; sensitisation of Child Care Institutions (CCIs), 

institutionalised children and their guardians, community leaders, extension workers and the wider 

community, the willingness of the children to be reintegrated and the willingness of 

parents/guardians to accept their children to return home, the existence of a reintegration 

programme within the CCI, the need for adequate number of social workers, economic 

empowerment of poor households, the provision of school materials including payment of school 



 

23 

 

 

 

fees, an adequate preparation period, and sufficient funding for the reintegration programme 

(UNICEF, 2019) . 

2.3.1.3 Nationally (South Africa) legal frameworks and obligations 

According to the revised white paper on families in SA (DSD, 2021), Family policy is critical in 

enhancing and supporting families to meet certain functions and responsibilities. The core 

functions of the family at any given stage should be enabled and improved through a family policy 

which, broadly construed, encompass any direct and indirect policy that influences the well-being 

of families (Randoph & Hassan, 1996). “Stable, healthy families are at the heart of strong 

societies. It is within the family environment that an individual’s physical, emotional and 

psychological development occurs. It is from our family that we learn unconditional love, we 

understand right from wrong, and we gain empathy, respect and self-regulation. These qualities 

enable us to engage positively at school, at work and in society in general. The absence of a stable, 

nurturing family environment has a profoundly damaging impact on the individual, often leading 

to behaviour which is profoundly damaging to society” (Centre for Social Justice, 2010 cited in 

RWPF, 2021 p.1) In SA, during apartheid, the policies and programmes concerning families were 

primarily designed to promote and protect the interests of white nuclear families (Hall & Richter, 

2018). Subsequent to the apartheid and the establishment of a new democratic dispensation in 

1994, the post-apartheid government developed several policies and legislative reforms that were 

aimed at restoring the country’s institutions to transform the South African society (DSD, 2013). 

The South African Constitution’s Act no. 108 of 1996 (s 28) (1b) provides for children’s rights to 

parental care or family care, or to suitable alternative care when removed from the immediate 

family environment. In addition to that, SA’s Children’s Act no 38 of 2005 recognises; the best 

interest of the child, child’s participation in decision that affects him or her, care and protection, 

and the parental rights and responsibilities in the matters affecting the child. Although the 

children’s Act makes provision for children who need care and protection to be placed in CYCC, 

it also makes emphasis on family reunification and aftercare services as part of the residential 

programmes (Children’s Act, 2005).  



 

24 

 

 

 

Although it was not an exclusive family policy, in 1997, the White Paper for Social Welfare was 

developed, and it was the first welfare policy paper that promoted an approach that could be used 

in viewing and supporting families (DSD, 2021). The White Paper for Social Welfare also outlined 

strategies to promote family life, and to strengthen families through guiding the implementation 

of policies and services that are related to families in SA. Due to the absence of family policy in 

SA, the gap was identified by policy makers, which needed an urgent attention (DSD, 2012). To 

address the damage of the policies, colonization and apartheid on families, DSD developed a Draft 

National Policy Framework for families in 2001, and the final draft was issued 2005. The Green 

Paper was approved by the South African cabinet in September 2011 (DSD, 2021).  

The guidelines on family reunification services were developed by DSD in 2012. They are aimed 

to facilitate the effective management of reunification services which promote uniformity and 

standardisation among social service practitioners that render reunification services to families 

(DSD, 2012). According to the guidelines, reunification services involve strengthening families to 

be able to care for and protect their members through the implementation of a reunification care 

plan, and permanency plan (DSD, 2012). It further states that family reunification must be planned, 

implemented and monitored, to ensure that there is successful reunification (DSD, 2012). In 

addition, the guidelines states that family reunification services are aimed to restore the well-being 

of families to regain self-reliance and optimal social functioning (DSD, 2012).  

The White Paper on Families (WPF) was approved by the Cabinet in June 2013. The White Paper 

on Families was meant to provide a principal framework for all other policies and programmes 

that are dealing with families across all government departments (DSD, 2021). It was anticipated 

that the implementation of the family policy would result in well-functioning and resilient families 

that are able to nurture and promote care to their family members (Hall & Richter, 2018). Since 

2013, the WPF has been numerously reviewed by both the government and independent academics 

(DSD, 2021). The Revised White Paper for Families (RWPF) was developed in July 2021, and its 

aim is to address the criticism and concerns, that emerged from the reviews of the previous 

iteration. The RWPF updates the policy paper to account for the contemporary situations of 



 

25 

 

 

 

families in SA. There is an ongoing consultative process which involves provincial and national 

stakeholder, workshops are attended by different representatives (DSD, 2021). 

Additionally,, DSD developed a National Child Care and Protection Policy in 2019. According to 

the Minister of Social Development, Ms. Lindiwe Zulu, the policy; 

“… provides a national road map for the provision of a continuum of child-care and 

protection programmes and the services that are necessary to advance the NDP and SDGs 

and discharge out international, regional and national child-rights responsibilities” 

(National Child Care and Protection Policy, 2019, p.8).  

Furthermore, in 2019, DSD developed National Guidelines on Independent Living Programme for 

Children in Alternative Care.  

In the Western Cape province, a study was conducted by Sauls and Esau (2015), with a focus on 

reunification services. The study used a qualitative approach; a purposive sampling was used to 

select participants.  Parents, social workers and children were interviewed. The findings show that 

high caseloads, received by social workers, affect family reunification services. Additional 

challenges that were identified were; lack of support for social workers and families from external 

structures, and lack of parent’s engagement in the family reunification process. The role clarity for 

referral social workers and residential social worker also affected family reunification services. 

Children were happy to be reunited with their families and there was an indication that they need 

to be involved in decisions that affect them. 

Family support and parental engagement were found to be one of the factors affecting family 

reunification in all the findings that are discussed above from different studies, including the study 

in England. While Potgieter and Hoosain (2018), conducted their study within an NGO, they argue 

that the government settings may experience different issues from those affecting NGO. Although 

it is noteworthy that Potgieter and Hoosain’s (2018) study excluded the views of the children and 

the social workers, and it did not assess the issue of behavioural problems as one of the factors that 

may contribute to family reunification. But Sauls and Esau (2015) had already conducted a study 



 

26 

 

 

 

that involved multiple cases, thus, children, parents and social workers. There are some similarities 

between the findings of these two studies; Potgieter and Hoosain (2018), and Sauls and Esau 

(2015). They both reported similarly on issues such as; family support, lack of parents’ 

involvement, and high caseloads for social workers. Potgieter and Hoosain’s (2018) study involved 

social workers from both the government and NGOs to explore different views and their findings 

were rich. However, the study paid less attention to the issue of children with behavioral problems 

in the family reunification process.  

It is important to understand family reunification and aftercare services are, and the elements that 

are attached to these concepts. Family reunification services refers to those “services that are 

aimed at systematically reuniting children within residential care or foster care with their families 

and communities” (DSD, 2012 p.12). The purpose of Family reunification is to help every child 

and family to, at any given moment attain and retain their optimum level of re-connection to full 

re-entry of the child into the family system, which upholds the child as part of the family structure 

(DSD, 2012). 

Characteristics of family reunification  

The guidelines on family reunification describes the characteristics of family reunification as 

services that are rendered to the family when one family member is removed and placed in an 

alternative care (DSD, 2012). The guidelines are aimed at eliminating the risk factors that led to 

the removal or separation of that family member from the family (DSD, 2012). They are aimed at 

strengthening the relationship between a family member in an alternative care and their family, 

and also to ensure that the cultural practices are still maintained. During this process, family 

members should be offered support and assurance, because some members may feel guilty and 

inadequate. Therefore, part of the support will be to empower them with necessary skills through 

counseling and referrals to specialised services. The ultimate goal should be to prepare both the 

separated family member and the entire family for reintegration. 



 

27 

 

 

 

In addition, the guidelines discussed the steps of family reunification processes which are; referral/ 

point of entry, screening, individual assessment, comprehensive family development assessment, 

family reunification care plan, implementation, monitoring and aftercare, and termination 

(Guideline on family reunification services, 2012). According to the National Guideline on 

Independent Living Programme for Children in Alternative Care (DSD, 2019, p12):  

“Family reunification work is the responsibility of the designated social worker, but in reality, 

facility Social Workers describes how little time these social workers have and how they are 

forced to attend to the time consuming, complex and cost-effective task of family 

reunification”.  

a. Aftercare Services 

According to the Children’s Act (2005), after care refers to the supportive services rendered by a 

social worker or a social service professional to monitor improvement concerning the child’s 

adjustment and development. These consists of family preservation or re-unification services; 

adoption or placement in an alternative care and, the discharge from alternative care (Children’s 

Act, 2005). According to Harder, Kalverboer and Knorth (2011), after care services can preserve 

the progress that is exists during residential youth care and can provide prolonged outcomes. 

However, research also shows that the value of aftercare services seems to be poor in practice 

(Harder et al., 2011). Adding to the problem, Harder et al. (2011) report that besides the poor 

empirical support for the success of aftercare services in residential youth care, many studies have 

found that the aftercare programs are not well defined, so that it is unclear on what elements does 

the programme consists of. Similarly, Stein (2006) reported that most of the aftercare programs 

are explained without citing the underlying theoretical approaches of the care the programme; there 

are no adequate underlying theories of what the key factors or procedures are in the aftercare 

process.  

In a study conducted in Europe on aftercare services for young people with delinquent behaviour, 

findings show fewer positive outcomes (Baker et al., 2000). Similar findings were obtained by 



 

28 

 

 

 

Harder et al. (2011), who shows that there is poor research evidence for the effectiveness of 

aftercare services for adolescents with emotional and behavioural problems following residential 

care. One of the contributing factors are that, aftercare programmes were not accurately described, 

and it is unclear how the services can be carried out in practice (Harder, 2011). 

In SA, the Children’s Act (2005) section 174 states that the child can be provincially transferred 

from alternative care into another form of care, that is not more restrictive, for a trial period of not 

more than six months. According to the guidelines on reunification services for families (DSD, 

2012), the family reunification process should be implemented and monitored for a period of six 

months to two years depending on the challenges on each family. After reunification, the 

practitioners are expected to monitor and evaluate with all the relevant role players to check if the 

family is ready for termination or referral to support services. Depending on the outcome, the 

social service practitioner will then write a closing report and highlight the exit strategy and any 

follow-ups required. Lastly, After the reunification process has been completed, the family can be 

referred to support services that are available within the community, such as support groups, if 

necessary, (DSD, 2012). 

The current study’s researcher’s observation is that social workers (both the residential and 

designated) close the files at any given point due to lack of clear guidelines about aftercare 

services. According to South African Council for Social Service Professions (SACSSP)’s code of 

ethics (2007a), social workers should terminate services to clients and professional relationships 

when such services and relationships are no longer required or serve the client’s needs or are 

limited. Also, the social worker should take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients who are 

still in need of services” (SACSSP, 2007a). Furthermore, the code of ethics implies that social 

workers should contribute in making appropriate arrangements for the continuation of services to 

children when necessary (SACSSP, 2007a).  

Family support has been identified as one of the crucial elements on reunification services across 

the world. It is also common, worldwide, that there are few legislations on families. Refocusing 

the discussion to SA, the researcher acknowledges that there are few family policies that exist. 



 

29 

 

 

 

However, it should be noted that in SA, some policies with an indirect impact on families exist, 

but they are not exclusive to family, for example; SA’s constitution, Children’s Act 38 of 2005, 

white paper for social welfare, and the National Child Care and Protection. This was also supported 

by DSD (2021), who stated that there is an absence of an explicit policy framework on the family 

in SA. According to Randolph and Hassan (1996), direct policies provide specific forms of support 

to families’ complete access to resources, including goods, services, and community support. 

However, it should be noted that the process of developing a specific family policy in SA is 

underway, hence the revision of the White Paper.    

SA is said to have progressive legislations and polices on the welfare of children, but it remains 

questionable, if those policies are implemented effectively. Hope and Homes SA (2016) also 

shared the same sentiment that SA has some of the most advanced legislations in existence about 

the protection of children, yet there is a growing number of children placed in residential facilities. 

In a study conducted by Hope and Homes SA between 2001 and 2016, it was found that 

approximately 21 000 children in South Africa were placed in residential care facilities. In contrast, 

the National Child Care and Protection Policy (2019), reported that there appears to be 

incongruency between SA’s childcare and protection commitments and its outcomes for children. 

The reasons include the lack of collective insight of what a developmental approach is, what is 

needed in terms of priorities, programmes and services, who the relevant role-players are, and what 

their responsibilities are (DSD, 2019).  

If policies on family existed, then the next question would be ‘how much knowledge do 

practitioners have about those policy?’ Dickens (2017), reported that there is limited policy that 

specifically governs and regulate the procedures for youth exiting care. Once youth actually depart 

from care, there are no stipulations on the aftercare support that they must receive (Dickens, 

2018). In order to answer the above question, the researcher explored the knowledge of social 

workers about aftercare services, and also their knowledge about the legislations and policies on 

family reunification and aftercare services. The current study also explored the challenges faced 

by social workers during family reunification and aftercare service processes. 



 

30 

 

 

 

2.3.2 African perspective on families 

According to Makiwane and Kaunda (2018), the African Charters acknowledges both the 

traditional African family and the white family forms. Most African societies unlikely agnate the 

same unit. In African families, it is prevalent for members of the same family as well as members 

of the nuclear family or a member of extended family to operates as a close household. In SA for 

instance, most children are cared for by other extended family members who are not their 

biological parents (Makiwane & Kaunda,2018). Family in the African context often refers to what 

in the western terms should be the extended family, and it is constituted by blood relations, sexual 

unions, and adoptions (Makiwane & Kaunda,2018). African families extend to; aunts, uncles, 

grandparents, cousins, and other relatives (non-biological) that form a family that function as one 

unit. Former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela had this in his autobiography in Long walk 

to freedom, has this to say regarding families in African context: 

 

“My mother presided over three huts at Qunu, which as I remember, were always filled 

with babies and children of my relations. In fact, I hardly recall any occasion as a child 

when I was alone. In African culture, the sons and daughters of one’s aunts and uncles are 

considered brothers and sisters, not cousins” (Mandela, 1995, p.2). 

 

 Lugira (2009) further states that a family in an African perspective cut across generations and 

includes relatives that are living far and near. In addition (Makiwane & Kaunda, 2018) reported 

that the concept, family, in Africa extends to non-blood relationships or other kinds of 

relationships, for instance; a friend with a lengthy relationship can be treated as part of the family 

and no longer considered as a friend, but as part of the family as a result of; closeness, trust and 

reliability that exists.  Also, in Africa family can be linked to a broader community. For instance,, 

family can expand through marriage where a young man gets married to a young woman in the 

community, and the two families become relatives or one family in some instances (Makiwane & 

Kaunda (2018). 



 

31 

 

 

 

 Challenges faced by African families includes, migration (both internal migration and external 

migration) due to economic factors, wars and violence. According to Evans, Matola and Nyeko 

(2008), about 10 000 people in Africa have been victims of forced migration, but the majority were 

forced by economic circumstances.  In a study by Bigombe & Khadiagala (2003), it was reported 

that many young men from Swaziland migrated to South Africa in search for job opportunities, 

and as result children were left in the care of the women alone. This resulted in many households 

lacking the stability and influence of the father (Evans et al., 2008). Also, this has contributed to a 

large proportion of absent fathers in several Southern African countries like South Africa and 

Namibia (Richter & Morrell, 2008).  However, in the absent of fathers, many men provide fatherly 

care and support to children who may not necessarily be genetically their children, but other 

extended family members such as uncles may assume the role of the father (Motlalepule, 2014; 

Mkhize 2004). 

According to Evans et al., (2008), globalization has led to trends that threaten family structures 

and the upbringing of children. This is how they (Evans et al., 2008) explained the impacts of 

globalization: 

i. Shift of roles 

According to Evans et al., (2008) traditionally, African families depended on males to generate 

income, but that has shifted in that the wife and husband have to generate income jointly. This also 

created changes in household structures where the responsibilities shifted from men to women. 

This shift also had an impact on the role of men in child rearing. 

ii. Early or no marriage 

Many young people in Africa get children at a younger age without officially being married (Evans 

et al., 2008). Also, Bigombe and Khadiagala (2003) reported that some parents who are struggling 

financially to raise their children may decide to have their younger girls to marry earlier. 

 



 

32 

 

 

 

iii. The impact of HIV/AIDS 

African families were also faced by a challenge of HIV/AIDS which led to millions of children 

being orphaned (UNICEF, 2004). Other challenges associated with HIV/AIDS in African families 

include weakening of the family system or change in family structure and function, economic 

burden (UNICEF, 2004). According to UNICEF (2004), the impact of HIV/AIDS also led to child 

headed household and single-parent household. In instances where both parents are deceased, 

children struggle to fulfil the parental roles, some children even drop-out of school (Evans et at., 

2008). Also, some of the children had to take care of the sick parent, which implies that the 

circumstances force them to assume the roles of an adult. Due to the impact of the HIV/AIDS, 

most families are cared for by other relatives or extended family members, primarily the 

grandparents where the biological parents are not present, which is considered to be 

multigeneration household (Evans et al., 2008). 

 

In addition to the list of trends by Evans et al., Olizi (2020) discussed the impact on Covid-19 on 

African families. According to Olizi (2020), Covid-19 had both the social and economic effects. 

Economically, number of industries were affected, international restrictions and travels also 

affected the economy of African countries because many people lost their jobs. Due to the increase 

in COVD-19 infection, health care system were weakened, which led to more death. In terms of 

social well-being, Covid-19 came with restrictions such as social distancing, which affected social 

events, communal meetings, family gatherings etc. (Olizi, 2020). In Africa, these forms of social 

activities are important in order to promote social development because the majority of Africans 

depend on person-to-person interactions (Olizi, 2020).  

 

In conclusion, it is clear that the structure and stabilities of the families in Africa has been impacted 

by various structures as explained above. Evans et al., (2008) had this to say: 

“Given the multiple disruptions in families, there is a need to be concerned about the kind of 

parenting that young children receive, regardless of who, willingly or unwillingly, has a 

parenting role” (p. 269). 



 

33 

 

 

 

2.3.3 Families in SA 

Families and households are profoundly important to children’s cognitive and emotional 

development, and parents can play a chief role in this development (Stats SA, 2018). Families are 

fundamental and enhances children’s resilience, irrespective of their composition, income, 

education or values (Family Pediatrics Report, 2003). Mahalihali (2016) found that, family is one 

of the elements that affect the emotional health of children. In addition, the Family Pediatrics 

Report (2003) suggested that the rising incidence of behavioural problems among children lead to 

some families’ inability to cope with the increasing stressors that they experience, and their need 

for assistance.  

In 2021, SA’s total population was estimated to be 60,14 million (Stats SA, 2021). In mid-2018, 

Children in South Africa under the age of 18 years were at 19.7 million, which made 34 % of the 

total population in 2018 (Hall & Sambo 2018). As of 2018, SA’s number of households increased 

to approximately 16.67 million in total (Hall & Sambu, 2018). The White Paper on families 

broadly defines a family as, “… a societal group that is related by blood (kinship), adoption, foster 

care or the ties of marriage (civil, customary or religious), civil union or cohabitation, and goes 

beyond a particular physical residence” (2013, p.6). The White Paper further outlined different 

types of families, that is: nuclear family, single-parent households, female headed households, 

child-headed households, skip generation households, cohabitation, and same sex relationships 

(White Paper on Families, 2013). In addition, Holborn and Eddy (2011) reported that in SA there 

are also extended families, as well as care givers or guardians.  In support, Nathane-Taulela (cited 

in Van de berg & Makusha, 2018) stated that many children in SA live with their extended families 

with adults other than their parents. A report by Hall and Sambu (2018) shows that in 2017 children 

who were living with both parents were 34%, those living with their mothers in absence of their 

fathers were 41%, and only 3% were living with their fathers in the absence of their mothers. 

Furthermore, 21% of the children did not have both their biological parents living with them, and 

32 000 (0.3%) of children lived in a child-headed household (Hall & Sambu, 2018).  



 

34 

 

 

 

It is this current study’s researcher’s observation that most of the children who are admitted in 

School of Industries come from divorced and single-parent families. Family structure affects the 

child’s development mostly through its family processes, thus; how the members of the family 

behave and interact (Family Pediatrics Report, 2003). The report further suggested that the risks 

for emotional, behavioral and educational problems are lower among children in 2-parent 

households on average (Family Pediatrics Report, 2003). Similar findings were reported by 

Mahalihali (2016), who argued that the existence of the children’s behaviour is strongly influenced 

by how well their family’s function. However, this notion was rejected by Hobcraft and Kieman 

(2001), who argued that existing evidence in relation to the effects of differing family types on 

children suggest that the amount of the relationships as well as the economic resources available 

to the family are the significant factor rather than the nature of the household.  

2.3.4 Overview of School of Industries in SA 

The Children’s Protection Act 25 of 1913 led to the transfer of School of industries and Reform 

Schools to the Department of Education, which took place in 1917 (Blose, 2002). The National 

and Provincial Education Departments continued to manage those institutions until March 2012. 

When the Children’s Act came to effect in April 2012, School of Industries were transferred to the 

DSD (Children’s Act, 2005). Prior to 2012, a School of Industry was a facility for the reception, 

education, care, and training of children who were declared by the Children’s Court as being in 

need of care (Child Care Act 74, 1983). The new Children’s Act (2005) shifted the Schools of 

Industries focus from mostly education and skills development to behavioural modification. 

Section 191 (2) (i) states that a School of Industries renders therapeutic programmes that are 

designed for the residential care of children outside the family environment, which may include, 

“… development and secure care of children with behavioural, psychological and emotional 

difficulties” (p. 132). 



 

35 

 

 

 

2.3.5 Legal matters and reasons for admissions in Schools of Industries 

Children are placed in the School of Industries by children’s court using a court order which is 

valid for two years according to section 159 (a) (i). In conside