The goal of this study was to analyse and describe the content of the National Drug Master Plan 2006-2011 (NDMP2) from a social development perspective. In order to achieve this goal, a quantitative research approach was adopted to determine objectively whether indicators of social development are encapsulated in the manifest content of the NDMP2. To this end a cross-sectional survey research design guided the study. A checklist, as a data collection instrument, was developed and utilised to collect data. The validity, that is face and content validity, and reliability (r = 0.98) of the checklist, was confirmed. From the raw data, descriptive statistics, specifically frequencies and percentages, were calculated. Three different genres of policy analysis were undertaken to answer the following research question: “Is the content of the NDMP2 in accordance with a social development perspective?” The key finding of the study was that, holistically interpreted, the NDMP2 is in accordance with a social development perspective because all ten the identified dimensions of a social development theoretical framework, i.e. capital development, innovation, integrated service delivery strategy, intervention by social service professionals, levels of service delivery, mandate, partnerships, principles, a rights-based approach and target groups, are captured in the content of the policy, albeit with different prominence. In addition, it was found that the NDMP2 has specific limitations due to the exclusion of several indicators of social development. It was concluded that the content of the NDMP2 has both strengths and limitations, when interpreted from a social development perspective. Amongst the strengths of the NDMP2 are the following: a multi-sectoral approach; bridging of the micro-macro divide; and provision for vulnerable groups, with the emphasis on the youth and children. The limitations of the NDMP2 are that its strategic framework fails to give equal weight to harm reduction strategies, alongside demand and supply reduction strategies; economic capital development is totally omitted; clear indicators for the monitoring and evaluating of policy are absent; treatment, as a level of service delivery, receives the most attention at the expense of prevention, early intervention and aftercare and reintegration services; a human-rights approach towards service delivery is not adequately emphasised; and, lastly, the NDMP2 does not make provision for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people as a vulnerable group. To align future National Drug Master Plans (i.e. NDMP 2012-2016) with a social development approach, the recommendations are, amongst others, to ensure equal attention is given to demand, supply and harm reduction strategies; to include economic capital development in the service delivery framework; to illuminate clear indicators for policy evaluation purposes; to provide equal weight to all levels of service delivery; and to ensure a human-rights approach to service delivery is clearly delineated. Future research could compare the content of all the National Drug Master Plans in South Africa as valuable insights could be obtained about the development of such policies and the alignment of these plans with a social development approach. Copyright / Dissertation (MSW)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / Social Work and Criminology / unrestricted