After Highvelder published two investigative articles about the management of the SAVF Louis Hildebrandt Child and Youth Care Centre (CYCC), we sent five direct questions to the SAVF requesting comment.

The responses we received were formal, carefully worded, and self-affirming – but are they transparent and truthful?

Maria Scholtz, head of marketing at the SAVF says, “Following a meticulous review of your email, we have prepared detailed responses to your 5 questions. Our responses have been prepared in accordance with the relevant Child Protection acts and regulations that govern organisations. Our response is aimed to provide clear and accurate information, addressing your questions.”

ALSO READ: Mother speaks out against alleged bullying and neglect at SAVF youth care centre

I’m publishing these questions and answers in full, with some context, so readers can judge for themselves just how much accountability is being taken by the SAVF’s management and how clear and accurate the information actually is.

Question 1: What is the SAVF’s official position regarding the resignations, and does the SAVF find it concerning?

Context: Following Waldi Sieberhagen’s (former SAVF Huis Ermelo manager) appointment as manager of the Louis Hildebrandt CYCC, six employees are said to have resigned – including three board members. A source claimed that some staff had worked there for over 20 years and resigned due to increased workloads, being assigned work outside the scope of their duties and conflict with management. We asked the SAVF whether they consider these resignations serious.

| SAVF’s Response: The enforcement of adherence to all SAVF policies and procedures, aligning with national guidelines led to some initial discomfort among staff members.

During this period, the facility experienced a staff turnover consisting of:

• 3 retirements
• 2 resignations
• 1 dismissal

“The commitment to upholding SAVF policies and procedures reflects the organisation’s dedication to providing quality care and service.”

Question 2: Can the SAVF comment on the reported food shortages?

Context: According to claims from both staff and parents, there was no food available when children returned from their holidays. One parent reportedly even had to buy food for the facility. A staff member who has now also resigned claimed that she was told by Sieberhagen that she need not order food as she would source food from a cheaper supplier, something which was not done so the children were left with only bread to eat.

| SAVF’s Response:
House-mothers were caught off guard by the return of a few children earlier than advised, fortunately the incumbent manager was able to quickly respond to the situation and provided sandwiches for the children whilst resolving the food situation on that day.

Question 3: What actions were taken in response to the reports of bullying and assault? Does the SAVF support efforts to stop a criminal investigation “to protect a resident”? And is there a formal policy on weekend visitations from parents?

Context: A mother alleged her daughter was assaulted by a 20-year-old girl who had been allegedly bullying children for months without any action being taken. After her daughter had informed her that she was allegedly assaulted by the girl, the mother decided to open a case with the police. The mother claims the manager had asked her that she tries to get the investigator not to process fingerprints. She allegedly said she was concerned that the 20-year-old could end up with a criminal record, which would ruin her future. She refused and told the manager it was out of her hands. Later, the mother was allegedly denied visitation, with the youth centre citing it was against policy, but could not provide any actual policy.

| SAVF’s Response: The facility adheres to all processes and procedures as outlined in the Children’s Act, ensuring compliance with national norms and standards. The facility works closely with other relevant departments to ensure a comprehensive approach to child care and protection. This collaborative effort enables them to provide effective support and services to children in need.

Each case is carefully managed based on its unique circumstances. The facility adheres to established guidelines and obtains necessary approvals from relevant stakeholders including:

• Case managers
• DSD

This collaborative approach ensures that decisions are informed, well-coordinated, and prioritise the best interests of the children and families involved. By working together with stakeholders facilities provides effective support and services tailored to individual needs

Question 4: Was the incident involving the unidentified man investigated? What is the SAVF’s policy on non-staff individuals being left alone with children?

Context: A mother claimed her 11-year-old daughter was left alone in a room with a man who was not employed by the centre, but apparently the son of one of the staff members at the facility. The parent stated that when questioning this, she was met with inconsistent and dismissive responses from staff. She additionally shared a video of her daughter with the Highvelder. A man can be heard speaking to her in the video. No staff member is visible in the footage. The facility had allegedly told her that someone had been supervising from “around the corner” while smoking.

| SAVF’s Response: No evidence of this complaint. All facility staff complete both a Form 30 and police clearance to ensure the safety, privacy and well-being of children, visitors are only permitted in designated areas. All interactions are supervised by our staff to maintain a secure and respectful environment.

The following activities are strictly prohibited within our facilities:

• Taking photos
• Recording videos
• Making voice recordings
• These measures are in place to protect the dignity and confidentiality of our residents, and to maintain a secure atmosphere.

Question 5: Was a staff survey conducted? If so, why was it not submitted? What processes are followed to evaluate complaints against management before reappointment or relocation?

Context: An employee claimed a workplace survey was conducted but never sent to head office. This raised concerns about transparency and how complaints against management are handled.

| SAVF’s Response: A staff survey was conducted and submitted, but the results were compromised due to:

• Word-for-word copied answers on questionnaires
• Incomplete surveys

As a result, the organisation was unable to gather meaningful insight from the feedback. To address this issue and gather more accurate and actionable feedback, the Human Resource Department will be driving and employee climate study. This study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the work environment and employee perspectives.

While the SAVF’s responses seem technically comprehensive, the central allegations remain unaddressed or deflected.

The methodology behind these responses should prioritise transparency and accountability, yet the continued deflection not only undermines any genuine effort for improvement but also casts a cloak of deception over the SAVF name, further eroding public trust.

In what appears to be an effort to offset the gravity of these concerns, the SAVF also unpromptedly supplied Highvelder with a glowing list of “improvements” made at the SAVF Louis Hildebrandt CYCC over the past three months, including:

1. Increased staff compliance with policy
2. Dietician-approved menus with appropriate portions
3. New emotional, physical, educational, and spiritual development programs
4. Greater respect for cultural diversity

It is my opinion that context matters:

1. Increased staff compliance rings hollow after six staff departures, reportedly tied to conflict and mismanagement.
2. Balanced meals come after children were allegedly left with nothing but bread.
3. Emotional and physical care is hard to reconcile with reports of bullying, untreated ringworm for three months, and a child allegedly being called a liar when reporting bullying and assualt.
4. Respect for culture is meaningless in an organisational culture dominated by secrecy, denial, and a refusal to take responsibility.

You can’t fix a broken system and at the same time pretend that it’s working.

Real progress requires truth, transparency, and the courage to confront uncomfortable realities — not just polished PR talks.