Developing social policy for children in the context of HIV/AIDS:

Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town, & Community Agency for Social Enquiry, December 2008
reduce this burden. Assistance to be provided where necessary includes a range of support
services by an adult mentor, from collecting grants to helping with shopping and
homework. Where the parent is terminally ill, child and youth care workers will assist the
family with making plans for the long‐term care of the children and ensure that they get
psycho‐social support to help them deal with the death of a parent. Children must be
consulted about any decisions taken on their behalf and have recourse to a complaints
mechanism if the relationship with the mentor breaks down.
Currently government‐run children’s homes are not required to register with the
Department of Social Development, which means that they are not subjected to the same
quality assurance process as non‐governmental institutions. HIV‐sector research showed
that the number of HIV‐positive children in alternative care (which includes children’s
homes) is increasing and that, especially in government‐run institutions, they are often not
receiving appropriate care. The Act now requires all social services run by government to be
registered, meet the required norms and standards, and be monitored.
One of the most successful lobby groups was the disability task team (sub‐group). This team
secured a number of clauses in the Act which are especially relevant for children infected or
affected by HIV/AIDS. Major victories include:
• the insertion of a clause on the rights of children with disability or chronic illnesses;
• section 6.2 of the General Principles which “protect the child from unfair discrimination
on any ground, including on the grounds of the health status or disability of the child or
a family member of the child”; and
• the requirement that a child’s illness be taken into consideration when the standard of
the best interests of the child is applied.
Resourcing the Bill 4
Finances and resourcing surfaced repeatedly as a topic in the discussions on the Children’s
Bill. The issue of sufficient funding and resources is both inevitable and sensible given the
wide range of services prescribed by the Act. The costing of the Bill was discussed earlier.
Other finance‐related issues are discussed here.
From the start of the campaign in 2003, civil society identified the obligation to fund
services as an important focus of advocacy. A first round of advocacy on funding obligations
resulted in an amendment to section 4(2) of the first Bill which provided that: “recognizing
that competing social and economic needs exist, the State must, in the implementation of
this Act, take reasonable measures within its available resources to achieve the progressive
realization of the objects of this Act.” After submissions from the Children’s Institute and
South African Human Rights Commission, the word “progressive” was removed and the
words “maximum extent” were inserted before “available resources”. This means that the
National Treasury and the provinces are obliged to prioritise the implementation of the
Children’s Act when making decisions about budgets and the allocation of resources.
4 This section draws heavily on Budlender & Proudlock (2008).
33