EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The alternative care assessment examines the current social welfare systems and processes rather than on the specific quality of care in the various children’s homes as standards have already been developed.1 The report has been specifically prepared for the MoHSW with the support of UNICEF Lesotho. During the in country assessment, visits were made to Maseru District, Semonkong Community Council, Mafeteng, Quthing and Mohale’s Hoek.
The assessment report has been written using a transformative social protection framework2 adapted for studying the use of alternative care. The assessment also briefly examines the situation of children who have been subjected to violence and abuse as it is these children that are more in need of care and protection and may require alternative care provision, rather than orphans or children in poverty whose needs should be addressed by the other social protection mechanisms being developed in Lesotho.
The UN Guideline for the protection and alternative care of children without parental care will be place before the General Assembly for adoption in 2009. These guidelines will provide an international standard for Lesotho to work towards in policy, law, structures and practice.
Poverty, food insecurity, unemployment of parents and HIV/AIDS are now key issues that affect the lives of children, After Botswana and Swaziland Lesotho has the world’s third highest HIV prevalence rate. Lesotho has similar living arrangements for children as other southern Africa countries. Just 47 percent of children under 15 years in Lesotho live with both parents.3 Fathers are notably absent which could be due to death from HIV and AIDS or they are not part of the household due to migration for work in South Africa; nearly a quarter of children are living in a single parent household with their mother. 4.2 percent of children are double orphans and are looked after by extended family or other caregivers. However there are also 25 percent of children who have both parents still alive but are nevertheless being cared for by other family members or non-family caregivers. Reports of rape where the victim is a child has increased in the past five years, attributed to greater awareness of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the formation in 2005, of the new Child and Gender Protection Units. In 2008 the CGPU reported 309 cases of child abuse.
Formerly, In terms of prevention the public assistance scheme managed by the Department of Social Welfare was the main form of social transfer to poor families. However Lesotho has now established old age pensions, conditional food transfers, agricultural support together with the piloting of a child grant scheme. These are important prevention mechanisms that support orphans and vulnerable children to remain with their parents or extended family, which is the main form of alternative care that is practised
As regards social services and child protection it appears that fostering as defined in Section 10 1. B. Child Protection Act 1980 is rarely used apart from as a preliminary to adoption that allows a child to stay with the adoptive parents prior to the court granting an adoption. There are over 20 children’s homes in Lesotho managed by NGOs or FBOs but there is no accurate figure for the number of children living in the homes or the reasons for their placement. The DSW developed standards for homes in 2005 that were complemented by guidance on early intervention and the use of alternatives to residential care. However these standards have not been operationalised and are not backed up by enforcing regulations. The CWU are aware of most placements but case management is not strong with few of the children appearing to have court orders, care plans or their cases reviewed.
There was a recent moratorium on adoptions while a committee of inquiry examined the adoptions processes and practices. The Commission found that the record keeping by DSW and courts to be unreliable and precise figures on successful or unsuccessful applications difficult to obtain. The 1952 Proclamation on Adoption (which discriminates against Basotho trying to adopt) was seen as no longer relevant and not able to safeguard the best interests of the child. In addition, there were concerns of “no transparency and accountability in the administration of these services.” In 2008 the moratorium was lifted allowing adoptions to be processed under the supervision of a small section in the Child Welfare Unit.
In the last 5 years there has been extensive policy making in Lesotho on child welfare, particularly on OVC but this has not always been supported by enabling legislation, resources or infrastructure. The legislation covering child protection and alternative care is inadequate for the current socio economic conditions in Lesotho and it does not meet international standards. There is a draft Bill in the public domain since 2004 that is still in the process of being improved but there is an urgent need for child protection to have modern legislation.
The MoHSW human resource strategic plan, plus the need to move forward on cash grants and the NPA for OVC led to the creation of the Child Welfare Department/Unit within the Department of Social Welfare. Urgently needed staff have been recruited to administer the child grants programme and improve child protection.
In the next paragraphs are a list of issues written primarily for discussion within DSW/CWU to decide which can be taken forward and for discussion with UNICEF as appropriate. It is important that the CWU begin to consider ways of by improving the information collection and collation on its own caseloads particularly as regards foster care, adoption and residential care. Improvements are also needed as to how information is collected and shared between CWU and CGPU on children who have been abused and are at risk. The use of child abuse/at risk register should be examined.
With the advent of the child grants programme and the delivery of assistance by (I)NGOs it is important that the District Child Protection Committees are able to coordinate the flow of assistance and to avoid different selection criteria, duplication or unequal distribution. More resources are needed at district level to facilitate child protection and family based care.
It appears from the different policy, strategy and planning papers that the concepts of kinship care, foster care, residential care and adoption with particular regard to the role of the state need thorough interrogation before the new legislation is passed. The proposed legislation does not introduce the concept of the state as parent but demands an active role for social workers in family decision making and overseeing a child’s welfare. It is perhaps timely with the draft UN Guidelines on Protection and Alternative Care reaching a stage where they will become final that Lesotho takes another look at the conceptual frameworks for the care and protection of children to bring them in line with standards set by the draft UN Guidelines.
