Developing family-based care: complexities in implementing the UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children

This study examined deinstitutionalisation in Thailand. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a total of 27 child welfare practitioners and policy actors to explore their perceptions of Thai alternative care provision. Findings show that participants perceive deinstitutionalisation as a complex policy challenge. Some felt that the institutions were necessary in order to meet demand, while others felt that cultural barriers prevent a shift to family-based approaches, such as foster care. However, data suggest that it would be difficult to characterise deinstitutionalisation as a ‘wicked policy problem’ as participants were hopeful for change, citing increased family- strengthening policies alongside efforts to implement foster care.

Download Full-text

Home Thrive ScaleTM: Case Management Tool Towards Preventing Family Separation and Ensuring Children Thrive in Family-based and Alternative Care Options

Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond ◽

10.1177/23493003211042439 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 234930032110424

Author(s):

Audria Choudhury

Keyword(s):

Case Management ◽

Social Relations ◽

Assessment Tool ◽

Well Being ◽

Management Tool ◽

Family Separation ◽

Alternative Care ◽

Complex Process ◽

Family Based ◽

Set Up

Case management can be a complex process where multiple factors must be considered for the safety and well-being of a child in any care option. Miracle Foundation’s proprietary Home Thrive ScaleTM is a strengths-based assessment tool that makes it easier to identify strengths, risks and address areas of support within a family home over time. A home’s safety is measured based on five well-being domains—family and social relations, health and mental health, education, living conditions and household economy—with the child and family’s thoughts at the core. Intervention options are then offered to put assessments into action. The tool serves to both prevent family breakdowns and reintegrate children from institutions back into families (or other family-based or alternative care options). Here, we provide an overview of the tool, including its purpose, set-up and functionality within a case management system. The use of the tool is illustrated with the COVID-19 situation in India where masses of children were rapidly placed from institutions back into families without preparation.

Download Full-text

Deinstitutionalisation and the Best Interest of the Child: The Case of Rwanda and Lessons for South Asia

Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond ◽

10.1177/2349300320932331 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 148-158

Author(s):

Shubha Murthi ◽

Chathuri Jayasooriya

Keyword(s):

South Asia ◽

Residential Care ◽

Large Scale ◽

Well Being ◽

National Guidelines ◽

Best Interest ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Alternative Care ◽

Rights Of The Child ◽

Family Based

The ‘deinstitutionalisation’ (DI) movement, also known as ‘care reforms’, is spreading rapidly across the globe, gaining momentum with the growing understanding among both practitioners and policy makers of the harmful effects of institutionalisation on the development and well-being of children as well as the strengthening of the child rights discourse. This has led to a growing international trend towards the development of, and a strong belief in, family-based care options for children deprived of parental care, away from large-scale institutions. This trend is reflected in and supported by international frameworks guiding the care of children, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular the United National Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, which was hailed in 2009. These instruments recognise that a caring and protective family is central to a child’s development, that governments should fulfil children’s right to quality care in families of origin and in alternative care and that institutionalisation of a child should be discouraged. DI processes are, however, not simple and straightforward as there are many challenges and complexities in their cross-cultural implementation. Even though unequivocally agreed by all stakeholders that the ‘best interest of the child’ should be at the heart of such care reform processes, its actual practice can often contradict such understandings as it gets submerged in numerous other considerations, constraints and challenges. This article analyses some of the dominant DI trends prevailing at present, in particular the primacy of family-based care and the misconceptions associated with the suitability of residential care, illustrated by the experience of SOS Children’s Villages in the DI process and its outcomes in Rwanda. The analysis is premised on the framework of the UN guidelines for the alternative care of children and strives to understand whether DI as it is practiced in Rwanda is aligned with the principles of ‘necessity’, ‘suitability’ and the ‘best interest of the child’ as stipulated in the Guidelines. The attempt is to draw lessons for South Asia from the success as well as the challenges faced in Rwanda, as many governments in South Asia progressively join the DI movement. It is critical for all child-focused international non-governmental organization/ non-governmental organizations (INGOs/NGOs) in Asia to understand the UNGL, learn from different experiences about the challenges of DI and prepare to engage with policy makers. One of the most important lessons from the Rwanda experience is that the ‘quality’ of care should take precedence over the ‘form’ of care, and that quality is not always guaranteed in family-based care. The shift in the positionality of the government of Rwanda and their willingness to rethink their approach to DI particularly in terms of recognising quality residential care is commendable. This needs to be taken as a precedence by other governments across the world including in South Asia—especially by those who are truly interested in ensuring the best interest of children who have lost the care of their parents.

Download Full-text

Growing up in institutional family group care

Young People Leaving State Care in China ◽

10.1332/policypress/9781447336693.003.0011 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoyuan Shang ◽

Karen R. Fisher

Keyword(s):

Young People ◽

Transition To Adulthood ◽

Group Care ◽

Family Group ◽

Growing Up ◽

Alternative Care ◽

Welfare Institutions ◽

State Child ◽

Outcomes For Children ◽

Family Based

This chapter discusses how, in addition to formal foster care in families, some state child welfare institutions also provide alternative care in family groups with a paid house mother on the site of the institution. This type of alternative care raises questions about whether this grouping is sufficient to simulate the benefits of family based care in relation to outcomes for children when they are growing up, and the impact on their transition to adulthood. The chapter looks at the experiences of seven young people in one city who had lived in this arrangement. It considers the differences for these young people during their childhood and as they prepared for possibilities to leave the family group care in the institution.

Download Full-text

Alternative Care Mechanisms in Jharkhand: Analysing the Implementation Barriers; Its Potential to Prevent Family Separation and Strengthening Family-based Care of Vulnerable Children in Jharkhand

Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond ◽

10.1177/23493003211021188 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 234930032110211

Author(s):

Sumantra Mukherjee ◽

Subhadeep Adhikary ◽

Neepa Basu

Keyword(s):

Foster Care ◽

Institutional Care ◽

Care Program ◽

The State ◽

Implementation Barriers ◽

Current Form ◽

Family Separation ◽

Alternative Care ◽

Care Guidelines ◽

Family Based

The required operational framework of a community-based care mechanism as envisaged under the Revised Integrated Child Protection Scheme and the National Plan of Action for Children 2016, fails to both prevent and effectively respond to the vulnerabilities of children in need of care and protection. Resonance of such unplanned community programming shifts the focus towards institutionalisation of children, thus grossly violating ‘institutionalization as a measure of last resort’, one of the fundamental principles governing the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. The act critically justifies the need to empower vulnerable families to care for children and re-emphasises the preventive role in ensuring family-based care or keep children in alternative care setting. The alternative care (sponsorship and foster care) guidelines in Jharkhand was launched in 2018. Since then, it has been found that the state is struggling to implement it. Though there has been some progress in the sponsorship scheme implementation, the kinship and foster care remains completely neglected. Child in Need Institute (CINI) is partnering with Hope & Homes for Children (HHC) since 2017 for pushing the agenda for deinstitutionalisation of children through a two-pronged approach of model creation and district-level technical support to the ICPS system. Working closely in the communities in preventing family separation, led to the understanding that there is a huge need to address the structural gaps for implementing the alternative care guidelines in true spirit. The purpose of the article is to do a systematic analysis of the implementation of the alternative care guidelines in the state and map out the implementation bottlenecks/barriers (systemic, structural and operational), hindering its smooth implementation. Besides that, the article will also try to establish a causal linkage between implementation of alternative care guidelines and dependency on institutional care, thus reflecting the potential of such mechanisms in promoting deinstitutionalisation. The research methodology will be a mix of qualitative and quantitative tools. Tools like content analysis of the key informants’ interviews and case studies will be used to understand the implementation barriers. A quantitative analysis of the secondary data on sponsorship scheme implementation will be done to analyse the gaps. Besides that, the experiences of children and their parents who have been linked with alternative care will also be analysed. District stakeholder consultations in 2 districts will be done to enlist the recommendations for the state. Thus, the key research question that would guide this article are: (a) What are the barriers to implementation of the alternative care program in its current form? and (b) What are the changes that should be made in the guidelines and its implementation process? The article will thus be an advocacy tool for influencing the state government for enhanced priority and investments in alternative care program and reduced focus on institutional care.

Download Full-text

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON RESIDENTIAL CARE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN: A CALL FOR FAMILY-BASED APPROACH IN ALTERNATIVE CARE

Education and New Developments 2021 ◽

10.36315/2021end126 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Lucia Carriera ◽

◽

Chiara Carla Montà ◽

Daniela Bianchi ◽

◽

...

Keyword(s):

Residential Care ◽

School Closures ◽

Alternative Care ◽

Left Behind ◽

Care Services ◽

Global Pandemic ◽

Un General Assembly ◽

Save The Children ◽

Family Based ◽

The Impact

Children’s rights and needs are at the center of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where education is viewed as crucial for providing the opportunities for sustainable, peaceful and equitable coexistence in a changing world. Alternative care settings are educational contexts (Tibollo, 2015) that deal with children in vulnerable conditions (UN General Assembly, 2010). For this reason, they can be considered as a sort of “field test” or “magnifying glass” on how the progress in striving to the implementation of the goals is proceeding – no one must be left behind. The 2020 global pandemic provoked an external shock to current socio-economic dimensions of sustainability. Education has been one of the most struck systems – let’s think of the 1,6 billion learners that have been affected by school closures (UNESCO, 2020). With this global framework in mind, the contribution aims at offering a pedagogical reflection on the impact the Covid-19 pandemic is having on children living in residential care centers (RCC). Worldwide, many RCCs, following the ongoing global pandemic, have been closed with the consequent return of children to their families of origin (CRIN, 2020). This process of deinstitutionalization, however, has not been overseen by rigorous monitoring, leading to increased risks of violence for children. This urges authorities to take carefully planned measures with respect to deinstitutionalisation in light of the COVID-19 pandemic (Goldman, et al., 2020). But Covid-19 is not only a health risk for children in RCCs. Because of the complex impact that the pandemic has had on the lives of children, on one side care responses are required, and on the other psycho-social and educational ones are also crucial (SOS Villaggi dei Bambini Onlus Italy; Save The Children, 2020). In Italy, for example, special guidelines have been drawn up to mitigate the spread of the virus within residential structures, that sometimes are overcrowded (Istituto superiore di sanità; SOS Villaggi dei Bambini Onlus Italia, 2020). In addition, tools have been provided to support the mental health of the children and adolescents that are deprived of opportunities for socialization given the closure of schools. In some cases they are isolated within the services themselves to mitigate the risk of the spread, causing a limitation in the possibility of seeing people outside the institution as their parents. Covid-19 underlines the urgency of promoting family-based alternative care for children. In particular, this paper aims to read through a pedagogical lens, the European scenario of residential services for children, to explore the impact of Covid-19 in these services; and to promote a family-based approach in alternative care preventing the risk of institutionalization in children welcomed.

Download Full-text

Policy implications for young people leaving care in China

Young People Leaving State Care in China ◽

10.1332/policypress/9781447336693.003.0012 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Xiaoyuan Shang ◽

Karen R. Fisher

Keyword(s):

Young People ◽

Good Practice ◽

Institutional Care ◽

Policy Implications ◽

Growing Up ◽

State Control ◽

Policy And Practice ◽

Alternative Care ◽

Family Based

This chapter reviews how the Chinese and international communities are sharing understanding about good practice in alternative care while children are growing up, particularly by prioritizing long-term family-based support. They are also changing alternative care practices to support children during their childhood and as they reach young adulthood, so that they are prepared emotionally and practically to live independently as adults in the same ways as their peers, away from state control. The chapter also looks at the policy and practice changes in China for the generation of young people who grew up in state care over the last 20 years, when alternative care was beginning to shift away from institutional care and recognize the rights of children and young people to an inclusive childhood and adulthood.

Download Full-text

The LPI as an Effective Ground-level Strategy for the Deinstitutionalisation and Quality Alternative Care of Children

Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond ◽

10.1177/2349300320937555 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (2) ◽

pp. 170-182

Author(s):

G. A. Wasana Sudesh

Keyword(s):

Sri Lanka ◽

South Asia ◽

Institutional Care ◽

Change Agents ◽

Ground Level ◽

Effective Strategy ◽

Alternative Care ◽

Success Stories ◽

The Government ◽

Family Based

Deinstitutionalisation and quality alternative care is a topic that is widely discussed in search of policies, strategies and good practices. This issue affects all children directly or indirectly. It is very pertinent to the South Asia region. Children who are in institutional care require deinstitutionalisation process that involves both prevention and a range of alternative care options that are community-based, family-based or family-like care. The Local Process Initiative (LPI), which was implemented in the Devinuwara Divisional Secretariat Division (DSD) in the Matara District of Sri Lanka, is an effective strategy that demonstrates deinstitutionalisation and quality alternative care. SOS Children’s Villages of Sri Lanka in seven locations including Devinuwara DSD since 2017 have carried out the LPI process successfully. It has generated positive outcomes especially in terms of strengthening the ground-level state mechanism for deinstitutionalisation and alternative care for children. The divisional secretary is the lead person in the ‘locational circle’ formed in this process, which composes of a range of field-level government officers involved in childcare and community development as they are the first point of contact for issues related to children and families. The government officers are considered the ‘change agents’, and their empowerment is at the centre of the LPI strategy and its success. From the LPI process in the Devinuwara DSD, it is expected to develop a model to avoid family separation. In here, it is expected to develop a ground-level deinstitutionalisation and a quality alternative care strategy which incorporate solutions from biological, psychological and sociological perspectives to build confidence of stakeholders on deinstitutionalisation and quality alternative care for children, and document evidence including success stories in order to support deinstitutionalisation and quality alternative care of children. This article offers an LPI process in the Devinuwara DSD as an effective strategy for the deinstitutionalisation and quality alternative care of children in South Asia.

Download Full-text