Dunga (2014) explains that community-based programmes are within the community and easily accessible and delivered within the traditional community life which strengthens mutual aid and social responsibilities. In this section, several community-based intervention strategies for family preservation are discussed.
4.5.1 INANDA PRESERVATION MODEL
The application of a collaborative model, which stemmed from the inter-ministerial recommendations for transforming the child and youth system in eThekwini, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, is the Inanda family preservation model. The model involved multi-disciplinary teams that comprised of two social workers, two child and youth care workers and three facilitators who were selected and trained on family preservation strategies derived from New Mexico (Manual on family preservation, RSA, 2010). Their training equipped them with new skills and cultural competence to understand family preservation, conduct assessments, engage families, identify family needs and strengths, and develop family plans. The teams provided family group conferencing, traditional services such as counselling, concrete services such as child care and educational workshops. Since family preservation workers found poverty was a
84
major challenge, basic resources such as social relief for families, transportation and adequate staffing was necessary for the programme to be implemented. The challenge is that the post- apartheid government reneged on its promise of a “better life for all”. This could have contributed to the discontinuation of the Inanda family preservation model when the potential for replication to other communities was a possibility to prevent the removal of children from their families. The model could have also been effective towards supporting families towards reunification and ensuring their reintegration of children with their caregivers and families.
Operation Sukuma Sakhe (stand up and build) initiative that extends from provincial to district to municipal wards promotes the co-ordination of services of various government departments, civil society and community stakeholders to unite against poverty, is discussed by McKerrow et al. (2019). Each war room (ward level co-ordinating body) is expected to deliver a basket of services that cover community partnership, behaviour change, economic activities and environmental care. The community partnership contributes to several programmes such as sewing groups and feeding schemes. Job creation is addressed through the employment of community health workers and youth ambassadors who become change agents. The initiative can be perceived as replacing the Inanda family preservation programme but on a larger scale.
However, little is known on why so few of the initiatives have been sustained although they hold the promise of a better co-ordinated and integrated service to children and families. Van Niekerk and Matthias (2019) found NPO and government participants were not very enthusiastic about participating in the Operation Sukuma Sakhe structure.
4.5.2 CHILD-HEADEDHOUSEHOLDS
The Children’s Act No 38 of 2005 introduces a thorny issue of legitimizing child-headed households to keep families intact and to prevent children’s entry into care. The Children’s Act is specific that only 16-years and older children should head a household, which makes the term youth headed, instead of child-headed more appropriate. This will avoid very young children being entrusted with caring for sick and/or dying parents and relatives whilst simultaneously caring for their siblings, as evident from research (Hagos, Mariam & Boglae (2017). Kaime (2009) said that whilst child-headed households are not unique in Africa and demonstrate the children’s capabilities and resilience in high-risk and low resourced countries, it is not a solution for orphan care. Hall and Makomane (2018) contradicted the common belief that child-headed households arose from HIV and AIDS and argued that the majority of the children have absent parents for reasons such as migrant labour. The writers concluded that
85
they have the support of their parents and adults through engagement and that the care arrangement is sometimes temporary. Hagos’ et al. (2017) qualitative survey in Ethiopia concluded that taking care of parents’ health and promoting income-generation activities and reproductive health can prevent some children from becoming the head of households.
Nxumalo (2017) found that some child heads performed well academically and were able to cope, but that intervention from Government and civil society is necessary to ensure the wellbeing of the family as a whole. There is no denying that there are child-headed households which can hinder family preservation and have a devastating impact on children. In Rwanda, for example, the 13 to 24-year-old heads of households experienced depression, social isolation and often lacked adult support. The children who were under five years and in child-headed households experienced socio-emotional insecurities. Child-headed households can hinder family preservation by contributing to constraints such as homelessness and migration of children. Mogotlane, Chauke, Van Rensburg, Human and Kganakga (2010) found child heads of households in the nine provinces were most often females from rural areas and informal settlements who experienced high pregnancy and school dropout rates. They found that inability to pay school fees was an important factor in dropping out of school. Since school fees can be waived in terms of the South African School Act (1999) as amended by the Education Laws (No 31 of 2007), children should not be denied access to school on account of not being able to pay school fees. But as with much else in SA, policies and law often do not translate into practice. School governance is devolved to school level governing bodies that determine school fees, which are not regulated by the state.
4.5.3 ISIBINDIMODEL
The trained community CYCWs implemented Isibindi (“strong heart’) along the principles of children’s rights and family preservation to OVCs to keep families intact, whilst continuing to engage with the extended family and the community towards protective services. The model’s standard operating procedures ensure that children’s sense of belonging remains intact whilst they and their families receive practical and therapeutic support (Mkhwanazi et al., 2018) The CYCWs work flexible hours to accommodate children’s needs after hours, including on weekends and public holidays.
Delany and Proudlock (2016) said that the model ensures that services required such as psychosocial support, nutrition, educational support, health care, advocacy, legal aid, life skills and economic support are accessed. The young person also acquires skills to cope within the
86
environment when one or both parents are absent. Visser, Zungu and Ndala Magoro (2015) in a quasi-experimental design found higher self-esteem, family support, lower HIV risk behaviour amongst 427 youth (18 years and older) as ex-participants of 12 Isibindi sites when compared with 172 non-participants of a similar background. An interesting finding was that an exit strategy required the Isibindi programme to look beyond eighteen years since ex- participants experienced a high unemployment rate and therefore required financial support when youth transitioned out of the programme towards sustained progress. Hence, the need for transition programmes is required not only within the residential care setting.
Emanating from the Isibindi model, similar initiatives emerged in other parts of Africa. One such example is the National Case Management Model in Zimbabwe. Muchacha (2015), via a qualitative evaluation design, found that the community-based casework programme prioritized mostly children who were orphaned due to HIV and AIDS. The community volunteer identifies orphans, conducts home visits and assesses and provides support and counselling with regard to the children’s and youths’ identified needs and makes referrals.
Muchacha (2015) argued that the lack of funding contributed to these volunteers being expected to render specialist social work services without adequate training or remuneration.
The success of the model was also hindered by unavailable resources to address the identified needs of orphans, especially since the social safety nets were operating below capacity.
However, Isibindi is a large-scale prevention programme proven to be effective for children at risk (Makoea, Roberts & Ward, 2012).
4.5.4 ISOLABANTWANA
The term Isolabantwana (eye on the children) was a model established by Cape Town Child Welfare and was rolled out in other provinces by Child Welfare South Africa. The programme is described in the review of the White Paper for Social Welfare (Department of Social Development) as community members trained as volunteers to support social workers. The eye volunteers training entailed various aspects such as counselling, statutory intervention, children’s rights, parenting skills, HIV and AIDS, substance abuse, domestic violence, and the role of various stakeholders. Their role was to identify child abuse and family crises and provide prevention and early intervention services through the medium of education and awareness talks, events and workshops. Whist the programme has its merit towards community participation and awareness, the challenge is that eye volunteers are entrusted to remove children from high-risk situations and place them with crisis parents until the social worker can
87
intervene. The decision of whether to remove a child is a delicate dilemma that social workers face and should not be entrusted to volunteers. Hence the need is for sufficient trained social workers to be accessible, reachable and available in all communities.
4.5.5 DROP-INCENTRES
The drop-in centres in terms of Section 14 of the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 are community- based prevention and early intervention programmes for the emotional, physical and social support of vulnerable children. The Guidelines for the Children’s Act- NSPG (RSA, 2010) contention is whilst drop-in centres are described as an entity on its own, it fits the description of a partial care facility. The guidelines for drop-in centres (Department of Social Development, RSA, 2014) recognized the multi-sectorial nature of vulnerable children that require effective implementation by government departments, non-profit organizations, and civil society. Although any person, organization (non-profit, community-based or faith-based, child protection organization or organ of state may establish a drop-in centre, it must be registered by the Provincial Head of Social Development and comply with the norms and standards.
The drop-in centres provide basic services such as cooked meals and, where possible, food parcels, provide for personal hygiene and render educational support such as enrolment at school and homework supervision. The centres’ discretion and availability of professional staff determine additional support rendered to supplement the basic needs provided. The range of services can differ amongst drop-in centres such as family preservation and reunification services; counselling, psychological support and referrals; social and life skills; education and recreation programmes; community home-based care services; school holiday programmes, health care, computer literacy; outreach and prevention and early intervention services. Dunga (2014) also identified peer education, drug marshals, arts and culture, life skills and HIV and AIDS awareness as youth programmes conducted from the drop-in centres.