Developing social work guidelines for community gardens for persons with disabilities in Limpopo Province : a social development approach

Abstract

In South Africa's Limpopo province, community gardens registered under the Non-Profit Act provide welfare services to persons with disabilities. These gardens follow a welfarist approach and can significantly contribute to social development services. Persons with disabilities are often excluded from economic and social services, especially in rural areas. The study aimed to develop guidelines for social workers and community gardens to improve the socio-economic conditions of persons with disabilities. The empirical research occurred in community gardens across five districts in Limpopo, South Africa: Capricorn, Waterberg, Sekhukhune, Mopani, and Vhembe. The study consisted of two phases: the first employed a qualitative approach, and the second utilised a quantitative approach. A mixed-method approach (qualitative and quantitative) was used in the study. In the first phase, 50 persons with disabilities were selected from five community gardens, one from each of the five districts. Additionally, ten social workers from the five districts participated in the study. Five community garden managers were included in the first phase. Lastly, five agricultural extension officers from the Department of Agricultural provincial office in Polokwane, Capricorn district, participated in the study. Seventy participants took part in the first phase of the study. In the second phase, 20 social workers received training on using and implementing the guidelines. A pre-experimental design with a one-group pre-test and post-test was used based on the intervention research approach. The same group of 20 participants took a post-test to compare and interpret the impact of the guideline training. The study's first phase and literature helped create guidelines for community gardens for persons with disabilities meant for social workers. Findings showed that social workers' developmental social work services in these gardens failed due to a lack of guidelines, resulting in inconsistent service delivery. Additionally, social workers lacked knowledge and skills for working effectively with persons with disabilities. The guideline resulted from the findings of the first phase of the study. Key findings indicate that community gardens offer economic and social benefits for persons with disabilities, contributing to poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods. Additionally, these gardens are crucial for the social and emotional well-being of individuals with disabilities and can serve as sites for delivering social developmental services. Quantitative results show that the guideline is novel to social workers. It serves as a starting point and is usable but requires refinement. Post-test scores improved understanding of the guidelines compared to pre-test scores, indicating participant capacity-building. The results suggest that the guideline can empower social workers to provide developmental social work services to persons with disabilities within community gardens. This guideline can be employed to mainstream and standardise the provision of social services in community gardens for persons with disabilities. Keywords: Person with disability, Disability, Physical disability, Paraplegia, Community garden, Guideline, Social work, Developmental social work, Protective workshop, Community development