Summary of key issues emanating from provincial visits by delegations from the Portfolio Committee on Social Development, 7-15 October 2004

Knowledge about Children's Bill

In all of the provinces, the majority of stakeholders and members of the community noted that they had not seen the Children's Bill. It was therefore difficult for them to comment extensively on the Bill. However, there appears to the perception among service providers, especially those from the NGO sector, that crucial elements of the Bill had been removed, and that this would seriously affect the value of the Bill. This issue suggests that there is a need for a provincial campaign to inform both communities and service providers about the content of the Bill.

Resource distribution

The majority of provincial departments and both state and private institutions caring for children reported serious challenges with regard to funding and resource allocation. In the first place, despite advances having been made with regard to the integration of the regions from the former Republic and the homelands, there is still a disparity in the allocation of resources in the different regions. In the Eastern Cape, for example, officials reported that more than 80% of funding for children's work still goes to the formerly advantaged areas of the Republic, while less than 20% of funding goes to the former Ciskei and Transkei regions. In addition, there is also an over concentration of resources in urban areas, both in terms of facilities (physical infrastructure) and service organisations. Smaller community-based organisations in rural areas find it difficult to access government funding because they do not comply with the requirements in terms of financial reporting or norms and standards set by the national government.

Another issue that was raised repeatedly is that the shortage of social workers significantly impacts on the provinces' ability to provide both statutory and developmental services to families and children. While the remuneration of social workers generally was cited as one of the reasons for the shortage of staff, it was also reported that rural areas are having great difficulties to attract staff to far- lying regions. The resulting increase in caseloads for those social workers in the employment of the state and private agencies meant that staff would opt for positions in other departments where there was much less pressure on them.

Emigration to other countries where salary packages were much more attractive was also cited repeatedly as a factor in the difficulty with retaining staff. Staff shortages impact on different areas of children's work, and further details will be given in the discussion on some of those areas.

Child-headed households

A number of issues were raised with regard to caring for child-headed households. It appears that provincial officials have a fair sense of the numbers of child-headed households in their regions because of reporting systems that have been put into place by various agencies, both state and private. There are also a number of areas where drop-in centres provide an invaluable support system for these households, as the centres often provide the only access to a balanced meal for the children. However, there is disagreement as to the best manner in which to care for the children. Concern was expressed about the effects of requiring children to take on the role of care-giver. Older siblings in child-headed households reported feeling vulnerable because there was no adult to protect them against exploitation, often in the form of sexual advances in exchange for financial support.

It is clear that the formal child care system cannot cope with the increase in numbers of orphaned children. Huge backlogs in terms of foster care placements were reported, while in some provinces the number of foster care placements has more than doubled in the last two years. This raises the question of whether the current system is sustainable over the medium to long term, given the cost attached to the foster placement system both in terms of the monetary value of the foster care grant, and the formal system of court-ordered placements. This is especially relevant where there is limited access to courts and social workers to process the cases. Again, the difference in state support for those persons who have children in their care in terms of the formal foster placement system and those persons (often relatives) who care for children informally and receive the Child Support Grant was highlighted.

One of the major difficulties cited was that it was often difficult to access support for child-headed households because of the lack of birth certificates common to such households. This was a problem especially in deep rural areas or areas previously affected by political violence. The availability and efficiency of the Department of Home Affairs must receive attention.

Community-based child care facilities

There has been a marked increase in the number of early child care facilities in all the provinces visited. However, creches reported major difficulties in surviving with the level of state funding currently available to them. One of the reasons cited was the fact that it was often difficult to comply with norms and standards set by the national government. A large number of facilities are therefore in operation, but not registered, and therefore not in receipt of state funding. In addition, they are located in areas where there are such levels of poverty and unemployment that parents find it very difficult to contribute to the care provided to their children. Creches have difficulties retaining volunteers, who, due to their own poverty, expect some form of remuneration. This contrasts sharply with the cost of operating some of the other child care facilities such as places of safety and secure care centres.

Places of safety, secure care facilities and children in prisons

A number of places of safety in the different provinces reported that they are not operating at full capacity because of staff shortages. In some cases, this meant that the centres were only able to offer skeletal services to children, while skills development and other developmental services such as counselling were simply not available. A number of places of safety were also experiencing difficulties retaining their educational and health services, because of difference of opinion in the province concerning which department was responsible for what service. Different provinces also pay different subsidies for the same type of facilities and services.

In addition, places of safety sometimes served in part as secure care facilities. This was problematic, as the centres are generally not very secure, with the result that children abscond regularly. Secure care facilities are also not operating at full capacity, despite the fact that large numbers of children still remain in prisons. Here, a number of problems were cited. Some of the facilities were transformed physically to be more child-friendly, but this compromised the security at such facilities. One of the results is that there is a perception among justice officials that there is no point in sending children awaiting trial to such facilities, as they are likely to abscond. In addition, the lack of probation services for the purposes of assessment of children in trouble with the law often meant that youths older than 18 are sent to centres meant to house children. This has a negative impact on the younger children in such centres. The lack of probation services also means that fewer children are accommodated in home-based supervision and other diversion programmes.

With regard to children in prisons, it was noted that a large number of the children remaining in prisons for long periods are remanded simply because they cannot afford bail, sometimes of as little as R200. Problems with funding educational programmes in prisons often meant that children have no access to basic schooling or skills development aimed at enabling them to become constructive members of society.