La importancia de la inclusión financiera.

Like elsewhere in SSA, households and communities in Zimbabwe have been rising to the challenge of the orphan crisis in spite of an un-conducive environment characterised by drought, high unemployment and shortage of basic commodities. Although various initiatives have attempted to alleviate the orphan situation through provision of care and support, these have fallen short of the rising orphan crisis and its devastating impact on the children in Zimbabwe. Communities are not only concerned about the impact of HIV/AIDS, but the majority have prepared ways to mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS on orphans (PRF/IDS/UNDP, 2003). Placing orphans in institutions is seen as the last resort when other options noted in Table 7 have failed (Department of Social Welfare (DSW), 1995; Drew et al., 1998). Communities see orphanages as undermining the traditional system of orphan care and separates children from their traditions (Whiting 2000). Among the Shona society a child has to grow up among his or her relatives to forge relations with kin and identity (Matshalaga and Powell, 2002; UNICEF/UNAIDS/USIAD, 2004). Cultural beliefs such as fear of invoking ngozi or ‘avenging spirits’, militates against taking unrelated children into the household. While institutions have better accommodation and sanitation than most family homes, they have a limited capacity to absorb all orphans. Indeed, less than 4000 orphans out of an estimated 1.1 million can be accommodated in the country’s 45 registered institutions (Matshalaga, 2002; Matshalga and Powell, 2002). Other than the extended family kin- ship based system, community based orphan care programmes have been seen as the best option. One of the main government and NGO strategies in Zimbabwe has been to promote and support community based orphan care programmes (CBOCP). The

Zimbabwean orphan care policy views and encourages CBOCP as the best model and cost-effective approach to orphan care (DSW, 1995).

Table 7: Levels of Priority Care for Orphans in Zimbabwe

Level Model of Care

1 The Extended Family: This is the preferred strategy for care of orphaned children and every reasonable attempt must be made to trace the child’s relatives.

2 Substitute or Foster Care Families: Vulnerable children, particularly those without traceable extended family, are absorbed into known, non-relative units after careful caregiver selection.

3 Family Type Groups: This level of care consists of paid foster mothers living together with small groups of orphans within the community, almost as quasi- substitute family.

4 Child Headed Households: This level consists of adolescents caring for younger siblings, preferably within the family home, but with some level of support and supervision from the community, especially neighbours.

5 Orphanages: As a last resort, when all other options are inappropriate or have failed, there is place for orphanages. The situation of babies and very young children needing care often fall into this category until alternative solutions are found.

Source: Poverty Reduction Forum (undated:19)

Although a wide range of care options for orphans exists, from less costly informal to expensive formal care models (see Table 7), community-based orphan care programmes (CBOCP) are widely used because the state and donors view the system as cost efficient. CBOCP are based on the traditional premise that a child in a community is ‘everyone’s child’ where the community and the immediate family are all responsible for the socialisation of a child. The impact of the HIV/AIDS on orphans has revived these traditional values, providing support for orphans along the traditional crisis coping mechanisms. However, theoretical literature on community care is limited and tends to rely on descriptive and evaluative reports form NGOs.

communities. Many communities in Zimbabwe have long traditional mechanisms or initiatives in response to crisis or to cope with illness, death and hunger. Most of these traditional coping responses includes savings clubs, burial societies, grain saving schemes, labour-sharing schemes and many others (see also Germann, 2005). These informal groups also proved material support and are major sources of psychological support. Under this approach, community-based volunteers identify the neediest children within the community and visit them regularly (Drew et al., 1998). An example of a CBOCP pioneered in Masvingo and Mwenezi Districts in Zimbabwe is the Zunde RaMambo (the chief’s fields), in which the chief reserves a piece of land to be cultivated communally. The produce is harvested and under the control of the traditional leader who distributes it to families living in difficult circumstances. In addition to contributing labour to the fields, local leaders mobilised villagers to contribute Z$5.0037per household to go towards orphan care (Ministry of Social Welfare, 1995, Matshalaga, 1997). Communities in Chimanimani District (see Appendix 1) formed groups to support orphans. The ‘volunteer mothers’ visit orphans to provide them advice and have engaged some of the orphans in income generating activities (Mate, 2001 cited in PRF/IDS/UNDP, 2003). The Families Orphans and Children Under Stress (FOCUS) administered by Family AIDS Caring Trust (FACT), supports orphans in four rural sites in Manicaland Province (Foster, et al., 1996; Lee et al., 2002). At each site volunteers (mostly women and widows) from different churches are identified and provided basic training to identify and register orphans in addition to making home visits to the identified orphans.

Although emphasis is placed on “self reliance” and community ownership of the programme (Drew et al., 1998:S10), the question of sustainability of CBOCP and ‘burn out’ of volunteers are of great concern in the context of growing poverty and the increasing large numbers being orphaned and increasing workload on women, the main actors. Lee (2002) and Drew et al., (1998) noted that although volunteers might have the commitment and enthusiasm to support orphans, they needed continuous support and training to maintain the momentum to avoid ‘burn out’. Furthermore, Ansell and Young

(2003b) CBOCP pointed out that communities are not static and orphans and their guardians do not always belong to it due to in and out migration of orphans. Participation of children is limited or almost non-existent as society still views orphans as passive recipients rather than a resource to the programme (Lee et al., 2002). Consequently, issues affecting orphans might be given less priority than the adults’ views. Yet, and paradoxically, orphans have shown great resilience when they care for their ill parents, head households before and after the deaths of parents and guardians. Therefore one of the most important points is to recognise that orphans are part of the solution to their situation and therefore need to be involved in decisions that affect their survival as UNICEF/UNAIDS/USAID (2004) and Hunter and Williamson (2000) pointed out.