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
requirements imposed on children’s homes by chapter 13 of the Act, which regulates child
and youth care centres.
In essence, the Portfolio Committee on Social Development confirmed the Minister’s
spoken policy and made it clear in law for the first time that family members qualify to be
foster parents. One factor that militated against a different decision was that restricting the
use of the foster child grant in the case of relatives would have been unpopular in the
absence of a roughly equivalent alternative. Thus, the chair of the portfolio committee
stated bluntly that they were not prepared to be the ones that prevented “grannies and
aunts” from accessing the FCG. Nevertheless, the Portfolio Committee on Social
Development (2007) noted the following in its report for the second reading debate on the
Children’s Amendment Bill:
“The Committee notes the phenomenal growth in the uptake of the foster‐care grant
which could affect the long‐term sustainability of this grant and therefore requests
the Department of Social Development to conduct an urgent comprehensive review
of the social security policy for children and the foster‐care system. It commends the
department, however, for the efforts made to maximize access by vulnerable children
to this form of support.”
With the Minister and now Parliament making it clear that the FCG is the preferred policy
option for relatives caring for orphans, a change is unlikely to occur. The debate could
possibly be revived when the age limit and amount of the CSG are increased.
Assessment of current position
The government’s current position will not solve the problems facing children orphaned by
AIDS. At the moment the only benefit reaching the vast majority of children in foster care is
the FCG. This is a crucial form of support, but orphans and vulnerable children are not
receiving other types of services that they desperately need. These services overlap with,
but also differ in important respects from, those delivered to children who are in foster care
due to a need for protection from abuse. Money is only part of the solution, because
children also need care, protection and love. The value of the care of a parent has not been
factored in. As a result, the new interpretation of the policy increases the perverse
incentive which exists for children to be left in the care of relatives in order to gain access
to the FCG.
The biggest challenge, however, is the fact that the court‐based gateway to accessing the
grant delays children and caregivers’ access to much‐needed social assistance for long
periods of time. In contrast, access to the CSG is comparatively simple and does not involve
the courts. The CSG is thus faster and easier to access, especially in rural areas where social
workers and courts are scarce. Whether the FCG is the best policy option for orphans is
therefore questionable.
43