These key actors must include children and youths who are care-experienced, parents and families who are involved in the system, disabled people’s organizations who are working to address the stigmatization and discrimination that has led to children with disabilities’ over-representation in residential care, and LGBTI youths and their organizations who are almost entirely absent from these conversations. They must also include the residential care managers and service providers, often faith based, whose engagement is central to the success of these reforms.

As we celebrate these anniversaries, the UNGA is in the final stage of adopting its first ever Resolution on the Rights of the Child focused on the theme of children without parental care. An unprecedented coalition of over 250 organizations, networks, and agencies working at local, national, regional and global levels across all regions came together to develop and advocate for a comprehensive set of Key Recommendations.

For the first time in its history, the General Assembly will call on its 193 member states to take concrete action to address the root causes of unnecessary separation and to ensure children are cared for effectively by their own families and communities. It will express deep concerns about the harm of institutionalization and call for its progressive replacement by redirecting resources to family and community based care services.

It is in those collaborations, in the growing partnerships and willingness to engage, learn, share, innovate together but also be willing to fail, that the complex answers to these ‘ hows' will be found and better systems of care and protection for children will emerge over the next decade.

of family poverty, disability or other discriminatory practices. Investments in de-institutionalization need to be matched with equally significant investments in preventing unnecessary family separation by focusing on effective gate-keeping, providing targeted cash transfers, investing in inclusive education and community-based services as well as a strong social service workforce to support and work with families. When alternative care is necessary, countries should prioritize family-based alternative care options such as kinship care and foster care. 

 

As we re-commit to the care reform agenda, and to leave no child behind, we must strive to end all institutionalization of children, including “voluntourism” which often draws more vulnerable children into institutional care and away from their families. Investments must be reprioritized, and resources re-directed to what is most effective: a fully integrated child protection system linking services to support families and prevent separation. Our measure of success is not the scope and scale of the alternative care options states can provide, but in the number of children who grow up in families in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.

The Guidelines are making an important impact on nations as well. For example, the Government of Kenya issued comprehensive Guidelines for the Alternative Family Care of Children in Kenya in 2014.  These referenced international conventions and Kenyan national legislation to outline measures for (i) supporting families and preventing family separation in Kenya; and (ii) the provision of alternative care measures that are specifically responsive to Kenya’s needs. Since 2014, Kenya has been intensively working to build its capacity to implement these measures.

Despite these and other successes, the Guidelines have faced challenges. Social welfare ministries have complex mandates but are usually the least resourced. These weaker ministries can be tested when tasked with coordinating the kind of intergovernmental efforts needed for quality care reform. Powerful constituencies (such as children’s institutions and their supporters) often actively oppose reform, and social attitudes and practices are frequently accommodative of institutionalization.

We can work together on three priorities to ensure that the Guidelines inform care reform over the next decade. First, we can find a common voice on the family and community-centered principles of the Guidelines and work collectively to further their objectives. Second, we can elevate care reform on national agendas on poverty reduction and social development, ensuring it is appropriately supported and resourced. Care of children does not belong on the margins! Finally, if care reform is truly accelerating, then our efforts on enumeration and evidence must accelerate as well.

If we manage this by 2029, we can be confident that the lives of countless children, families and communities will be greatly improved.

The vast majority of children outside of parental care are not in the formal care system. There are estimated to be 50 million refugee and asylum seeking children, over 100,000 street connected children, 5.5 million children trafficked and 250,000 associated with armed groups. Though not all are outside of family care, they are extremely vulnerable to family separation. The UN Study of Children Deprived of Liberty refers to at least 7 million children of which 5.4 million are in institutions. Child Welfare Reform needs to take all these populations into consideration.



There are excellent initiatives addressing family strengthening and prevention of separation. However, they are often limited to parents and fail to recognise the crucial role the extended family plays. Parenting programmes, for example, are usually taken up by mothers and yet research shows that different family members play a distinct and crucial role in the life of a child. A more systemic approach is needed to capitalise on the resources available within an extended family to care for children.

A major achievement for child welfare reform in the coming 10 years will be an investment in the support and monitoring of kinship carers. 1 in 10 children are in extended family care and yet little data exists or research conducted into this form of care. It is highly valued by children but the least invested in. The advantages are many. Outcomes for children in kinship care tend to be better than those in formal alternative care. Kinship care enables children to maintain their sense of identity and cultural traditions. When in their best interests, it maintains a relationship with parents during separation and it facilitates reintegration back into the family. It can provide the flexibility for families to manage difficult times. To be effective, interventions must target the wider family not just parents.

institutions have been closed. To support deinstitutionalization efforts, support services for inclusion of the most vulnerable children were established with the creation of about 500 resource centres and over 600 support teachers deployed across the country. In 2018, over 60,000 children received family support and more than 10,000 children with special educational needs and disabilities were included in mainstream education.

Main lessons learned from Moldova:

Child care reform in Moldova is not yet complete. 1100 children with disabilities left behind in institutions should be helped to return to family and community care as soon as possible. But we are optimistic, as the government remains committed and civil society remains united in the provision of support to national and local authorities to undertake the full transition as is planned in the current national Child Protection Strategy for 2014-2020. 

organisations take this approach. Many children are still separated unnecessarily from parents and families. But the ship is turning towards family support and strengthening as a strong pillar of child protection.

A key challenge is the need to really address gaps in knowledge about outcomes for children in families living in poverty so that poverty, and the stress that it causes to families leading to violence, abuse, neglect and separation, can no longer be a reason for child separation. This means steadily and systematically researching the links between family and parent or caregiver support interventions and the results they can achieve for children in terms of reducing violence, abuse and neglect; improving child well-being, education and health outcomes; and preventing unnecessary separation, not only in childhood but into adulthood. We really lack strong, longitudinal evidence on how family support and reunification can succeed for children and families compared to other child protection strategies adopted by governments such as placing children into alternative care or adoption. This applies for children and families in all situations where poverty or other underlying factors (migration, conflict, natural disasters) are driving separation. If we can gather strong, valid evidence, we will be able to make strong and compelling cases for investing in family support and strengthening as a matter of course.

Another challenge is to really consolidate efforts around ensuring that community based services to support children with disabilities and their families become the norm. Ending the institutionalization of children with disabilities is a major, urgent priority in nearly every country around the world.

Within the next ten years I hope that the ship will continue to gather steam in the direction of community-based family support and strengthening as a strong pillar of child protection and as the no-question first response for children with disabilities and their families.

mixed results because those of us engaged with such work generally have skills in areas other than developing sustainable economic activities. The challenges are multiplied many times over by the widely different contexts in which families live and the skills and capacities they have. In the last decade, however, many organizations that support family reintegration and alternative family placements have recruited personnel with skills in household economic strengthening and begun to learn about the tricky business of strengthening families economically. 

Recognizing a need to consolidate learning in this area and provide relevant guidance, USAID’s Vulnerable Children Fund supported FHI 360 to develop practical guidance for use by program designers, funders, and implementers. Over five years The Accelerating Strategies for Practical Innovation & Research in Economic Strengthening (ASPIRES) Family Care project did an extensive literature review, a global survey of organizations working to prevent unnecessary separation of children from families, interviewed practitioners in depth, and did operational research through two projects that used a variety of interventions to prevent unnecessary family separation and enable already separated children to reintegrate into family care. From this learning and research, the ASPIRES Family Care project created Meeting the Costs of Family Care: Household Economic Strengthening to Prevent Children’s Separation and Support Reintegration, A Resource Guide , which was launched in the October 2019 BCN newsletter. Undoubtedly, the coming decade will see more learning in this area, and it provides practical guidance to be built upon.

families and/or communities. DCS was also supported to complete a situational analysis in five counties looking at over 200 CCIs and Statutory Children Institutions, the children residing in them and the knowledge and attitudes amongst the CCI staff. This data is helping government to make evidence-informed decisions and to have a consistent approach to launching reforms nationally.

The care reform momentum has most recently brought together a multi-disciplinary team led by the National Council of Children Services (NCCS) and drawing from state and non-state partners to undertake a national care system assessment, which will guide development of a national care reform strategy focused on prevention, protection and promotive aspects of child protection. Family strengthening and unnecessary separation of children from their families is at the core. Additionally, and most importantly, the Government of Kenya has committed to careful planning of the reunification of children with their families or alternative families. The process to assess the needs and strengths of children in care has started, [4] along with tracing families and training of alternative families. The Kenya stage is set for great change for and with children, youth and families, and is proud to have care leavers at its side throughout the entire process. Together Kenya will be an example in the region.

[1] Ministry of East African Community, Labour and Social Protection , Office of the Cabinet Secretary. (November 01, 2017). Reference: MEACL&SP/7/13(S)SP/Vol.1/ (8). Suspension of Registration of New Charitable Children’s Institutions (CCI/SCIs).

[2] Special cabinet sitting chaired by the president held in12 September, 19.

[3] Department of Children’s Services Annual Workplan; Institutional Care and Alternative Family-Based Care Sections.

[4] Press statement on state of reforms on child welfare, Adoption and Protection; Ministry of Labor and Social protection: Cabinet Secretary, May 6, 2019

Likewise, another challenge is when adoptive families and others – often well-intentioned –provide financial support to child protection systems linked to intercountry adoptions such as residential care institutions. This can generate expectations within countries of origin that if they “produce” more children for intercountry adoption, they will receive more support, drawing again children unnecessarily into intercountry adoption.

In the next ten years, my hope is that we continue to build on the progress that the Guidelines have achieved and that less children will be unnecessarily separated from their parents. I dream of a world where poverty is not the reason why children cannot live with their parents. I can also see a role for the Guidelines in surrogacy cases, in the unexpected circumstances when neither the surrogate mother nor intending parents are able/willing to care for the child. I hope that the Guidelines will be upheld so that children born through surrogacy will be able to live with families and institutional care will not be prioritised as is currently the case. 

We are witnessing a shift of Christian support for vulnerable children from orphanages to efforts that strengthen families, preventing the need for children to be separated from their parents. ​

However, there is still much to be done. We must address the underlying assumption among the broader Christian culture that mistakenly says, “orphans need orphanages.” If these assumptions are not addressed, we will continue to battle the building of more orphanages by Christians. We must also ensure that reintegration is done with best practices, prioritizing the safety of children, and that Christian organizations work in effective partnership with local and national governments in care reform efforts.

Faith to Action has witnessed the great potential for change among Christians. When their efforts are redirected, they have the ability to bolster family-strengthening efforts, alternative family-based care models, and care reform. Christians have always valued family and cared for the most vulnerable people in society. I believe the church will continue that legacy by reintegrating children into families and strengthening families so they can care well for their children. In 10 years, my hope is to see Christians leading in the effort to see children cared for in safe, loving families.

experience developmental delays, especially during early childhood, and potentially irreversible psychological damage by growing up in such environments. Even in a well-staffed institution, a child rarely gets the amount of attention he or she would receive from their own parents and families, or from substitute caregiver families in the community. In fact, over sixty years of research advises that even where institutions are well run, the very process of institutionalization is harmful to a child’s development. Despite this vast recognition of the negative impact on the institutionalization on children, we still too often see well-meaning, but ignorant efforts, that in fact fuel the business of orphanages and child trafficking.

One of the children who participated in the CRC anniversary side event in New York said in his remarks, “I am here today because I don’t want other children to be brought up in an institution.”

Services that assist and support families in the local community can help prevent children needlessly entering into institutions and ensure that separating a child from their family is only ever a last resort. Many children can return to live with their birth or extended families when the appropriate community-based services have been put in place.

In order to prevent and end violence against children in care settings, we must ensure that parents never have to give up their children due to poverty, ignorance or other preventable root causes. And if placement in care is clearly in the best interests of the child, different options should be available depending on the child’s situation, needs and wishes, and in line with the child’s ability to participate in the decision-making process, to avoid a “one-size-fits-all” solution and to allow children to grow up in a protective and enabling environment and to develop to their fullest potential.

Only then can we ensure that we leave no child behind! 

risks, as was initially done in Namibia, overwhelms the system and is neither cost effective nor necessarily appropriate. More successful practices such as creating community monitoring mechanisms or providing cash transfers and social protection schemes to all poor families, including kinship carers, have proven more effective. As we support the expansion of family and community care, we need to bear in mind that all forms of care come with some inherent risks that need to be mitigated.

 

Over the past decade, we have become much better at beginning to define what high quality alternative care looks like. This includes: being able to access services and support, being able to integrate into the community, form stable relationships, maintain the child’s identity, receive individual attention, be able to contact friends and family if safe, and be prepared for independence upon leaving care. 

 

For our sector to move forward, we need to focus on defining and showing the benefits of a variety of high-quality alternative care options delivered at scale. We need to be measuring outcomes for individual children and making sure that children placed in any form of family-based alternative care are thriving.

orphanages was last estimated in a baseline survey at 50,000 in 2012.

While we still have a long journey in front of us, in another ten years we hope to see all Districts in Uganda committed to prioritising families and alternative care. By directly working with the Government, we are creating a blueprint to guide how to build supportive communities and gatekeeping structures to move children safely into families, and help orphanages repurpose their services. With growing momentum to prioritise family-based care, we need to ensure the transitions are done safely and effectively. We hope to see Uganda lead the way in best practice for alternative care and child protection.

 

One thing we know for certain is this work can't be done alone. The Government, social workers, community volunteers, orphanages, communities, and the families worried they may have to place their child in an orphanage all have a role to play to ensure that no child in Uganda grows up without a family.

communities to ostensibly provide them with better quality of life). Some governments fail to respect the most basic principles outlined in the Guidelines in their juridical and immigration proceedings. Other governments fail to include internally displaced or refugee children in their existing systems, such as social welfare, education and health systems. Armed forces and groups continue recruiting vulnerable children with impunity. Humanity cannot afford to allow these patterns to continue. The cost of inaction is simply too high.

Scientific and anecdotal evidence continues to reaffirm the recognition made in the CRC that “… the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.” It is time for us, as a global community of actors, to redouble our efforts in ensuring the well-being and healthy development of children affected by humanitarian crises through responsive and protective care. This involves changes in policy and practice as well as increased funding for operational agencies who implement much needed interventions to prevent and respond to separation of children in humanitarian settings.

children without mentioning LGBTI children. They also suggest vaguely that “special efforts should be made to tackle discrimination” but do not mention sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC)-based discrimination. Yet the rates of family abandonment of LGBTI children suggest that these children are likely to be over-represented in alternative care settings, which may be ill-adapted to meet their needs. In addition, LGBTI children in alternative care often face significant levels of stigma, discrimination, and bullying within institutions. [2] , [3] , [4] , [5]

Furthermore, in a recent global survey , 38% of residential care facility workers stated that lack of capacity played a part in preventing LGBTI* children from being adequately safeguarded, and 53% of respondents felt that their system for monitoring and reviewing safeguarding measures does not take into account the needs of LGBTI* children. The good news that emerges is the overwhelming suggestion that staff members would like to learn more about protecting, supporting, and caring for LGBTI children and youth, according to the survey.

 

Given the central role that families play in the lives of LGBTI children and youth—and the potential for family rejection to have long-term consequences for these children and youth—there are surprisingly few services and supports that target LGBTI children’s families. Moreover, for those children who are living in alternative care settings or on the streets, work to understand how best to support these children is also only embryonic. Examples of programs include:

One could imagine a scenario in which family strengthening approaches would in fact become the  majority  of services and supports for LGBTI children, a goal for future work.

[1] Morton, M.H. et al.  Missed opportunities: Youth homelessness in America. National estimates.  Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2017.

[2] Dreilinden gGmbH and SOS Children’s Villages International.  “Skirt? Nope, not for me!” Sexual and gender self-determination for children and youth in alternative care settings: An issue paper for development iNGOs . Hamburg and München: Authors, 2016.

[3] Dreilinden gGmbH, SOS Children’s Villages International, Keeping Children Safe.  “Let Me Be Me!” Better Care for LGBTI* Children: A Working Paper for iNGOs . Hamburg, Innsbruck, and London: Authors, 2017.

[4] Mallon, Gerald P.  Let’s Get This Straight: A Gay- and Lesbian-Affirming Approach to Child Welfare . New York: Columbia University Press, 2000.

[5] ---.  We Don’t Exactly Get the Welcome Wagon: The Experiences of Gay and Lesbian Adolescents in Child Welfare Systems . New York: Columbia University Press, 1998

children in families, starting at the grass roots level. These developments accelerated over the last 5 years, most likely supported by an increasing number of donors, private, corporate and institutional who committed funding for the transition of children into families and the development of alternative care for children. A fantastic result is an increasing awareness of the harm of institutions and the recognition that sometimes helping is not helping and that orphanages contribute to the displacement of children out of their families and communities.

The biggest challenges we are facing are threefold. Firstly we need to make sure we capitalise on the increased political will and the growing local confidence and expertise to ensure we take a system change approach to develop child protection and care systems which are sustainable, adaptable, well monitored and of high quality in serving the best interest of all children. Secondly, we have to focus much more attention to strengthening families and gatekeeping mechanisms. We need to scale up successful projects and local initiatives and embed them into national law and budget. Thirdly, children with disabilities, are still left behind, and are over-represented in institutions and residential care. They must become a priority and we need to build the capacity of the civil society to advocate, support and provide services for their families.

 

  

We have to remain focused on ending reliance on institutions and fight the issue fatigue and the myths still surrounding the scale of impact of care reform and deinstitutionalisation programmes. Collaboration, convergence and system change should enable us to raise care reform and the elimination of institutions as a global priority. I wish that families, never orphanages will become our umbrella under which we can ensure children grow up in safe, loving families, supported in resilient communities and assisted by responsive child protection and care systems.

The introduction of Guidelines presented the potential of enhanced mechanisms on admission and gatekeeping for residential care that targeted the issue of recruitment into orphanages (see guidelines 125 and 127) and included specific protections from abuse and exploitation for children living in alternative care (see guidelines 92-93). However, such mechanisms are not effective without enforcement. The key challenges currently are to encourage governments to both implement the Guidelines into legislation, policy and practice, and to act to enforce them in order that children in care situations are protected, and care institutions are not sites of exploitation or trafficking. 

As we progress into the coming decade, it is imperative that we work towards explicit recognition of the offence of orphanage trafficking as one method of ensuring that children in care are not commodified. We must also keep emphasising that orphanage trafficking is just one symptom of a child protection system that exhibits an over-reliance on institutional care for children generally, and is not the sole cause. 

and/or chronic health issues, as it did at the start of the project in 2013. Additionally, other family based care organizations are expressing interest in becoming equipped to be more inclusive of children with disabilities.

Despite this promising progress, challenges remain. There still is a lack of adequate support services for families to address the problems which resulted in large numbers of children being placed in orphanages to begin with. This is especially true in more rural areas. As the government is encouraging the reintegration of children out of residential care and back into their families, care needs to be taken to ensure that the families and children are prepared for this transition and that issues such as poverty, food security, educational opportunity, access to medical and rehabilitative services, etc. are being addressed. Still, there is reason for optimism that the current momentum will remain strong. We anticipate continuing to see more of the population recognize the advantages of family based care over institutional care, along with greater availability of support and continued improvement in practices. 

for Volunteering for Development), which includes a clear statement prohibiting orphanage volunteering, and the inclusion of wording on the need to “prevent and address the harms related to volunteering programmes in orphanages” in the Key Recommendations for the UNGA 2019 Rights of the Child Resolution is a significant and historic step in the right direction.  

That said, there is still a long way to go. The global billion-pound voluntourism sector remains largely unregulated and the demand for international volunteering opportunities as a gap year or a career break continues to grow. Overseas volunteering is actively encouraged by schools, colleges, universities and even corporations, through their graduate recruitment programmes.  

There are several challenges ahead. The first is to ensure that as volunteer-sending organisations transition away from relationships with orphanages, they do so responsibly and do not leave children vulnerable. A divestment resource which is being developed through a partnership between the travel and child protection sectors, is designed to support travel companies through this process.  

Secondly, there is a risk that as volunteer-sending organisations cease orphanage volunteering programmes, they may shift to other forms of volunteering with equally vulnerable children. To avoid this and build on the existing collaborative efforts with the travel sector, a framework for volunteering in ethical and sustainable ways to support children and families overseas needs to be developed.  

Finally, change is needed within the education sector. To reduce student participation in orphanage volunteering there needs to be a shift in how schools, colleges and universities approach volunteering overseas more broadly. This includes breaking down the cultural assumptions, which are known to contribute to ineffective international volunteering, and teaching, guiding and preparing students to participate in more ethical, responsible and thoughtful volunteering.  

Moreover, we have to move from rhetoric and pronouncements and lock in political commitment into care reform strategies and action plans, with adequate resource allocation and enhanced processes for monitoring and oversight.

Civil society organizations need to mobilize and pull together, improve their coordination and hold governments accountable. Their role is equally important in supporting and supplementing government efforts in care reform - by contributing resources, piloting projects and developing technical knowledge and skills on how to move away from institutional care. Critically, this know-how and learning has to be upscaled and used to inform national interventions.

Although the task ahead remains daunting, taking into account the current socio-economic and political realities, it is reassuring to see the efforts of some African countries that are pioneering care system reform. These countries are effectively demonstrating that change is possible and can inspire others to act. We trust that in the next 10 years governments, civil society organizations and international donors will divert investment for institutions and focus instead on preventing the unnecessary separation of children from their families and rediscover those family and community-based approaches to care that our continent has traditionally cherished and promoted in the past.

unable to afford care for their child with disabilities who requires specialized services or equipment.

Care reforms are welcomed, but they do not always adequately address the specific needs of children with disabilities, or recognise their inherent rights on an equitable basis with other children. In some cases, the phenomenon of transinstitutionalisation occurs – where children with disabilities are simply moved from one type of institution to another. It is important to note that insitutions are not merely defined by size or name, but rather by elements such as isolation and segregation from independent life within the community, lack of freedom and choice, and rigidity of routines. Children with disabilities are disproportionately more likely to be institutionalised, and more likely to suffer abuse in these environments. There are reports of large institutions that have been converted into “small group homes” by renaming each floor as a separate “home” but retaining the same policies, staff, and practices as before.

So we see that there is still a long way to go, but we have roadmaps to get us there that need only the political will and funding of decision makers. Through implementing and aligning to the CRPD via targeted policies and programs, reviewing and revising discriminatory legislation, and reforming infrastructure and systems, all actors – including local and national government, civil society, and private sector – can enable full realisation of the right to family life for children with disabilities. 

Reactive interventions that come into play after a child is already separated from his/her family have resulted in family disintegration leading to flocking of children into the streets in their hundreds while sprawling children’s homes have increasingly replaced family. Children that are lucky to remain within families are increasingly faced with the risk of severe neglect, abuse and exploitation as families reel under the weight of economic hardships and social disintegration. There is need for states to invest more in preventive services to tackle root causes of children’s separation from their families and abandonment.

Resistance by residential care managers, lack of demonstrable alternatives to institutionalisation, inadequate professional capacity of the workforce and lack of budgets for system reform are additional challenges.

Taking cognizance of the integral role residential care managers play in child protection and ensuring that they are given a seat at the care reform discussion table will contribute to success in alternative care in the coming years.

Mitigating resistance from residential care managers, staff and donors calls for continued sensitization and engagement – understanding where they are at, why they do what they do and giving them a seat at the table. We must avoid the use of language that is condescending and demonizing as this adds to the resistance.

Committing to journeying alongside them by building their capacity to implement alternative care as well as linking them up with entities that have undergone the transition goes a long way. Also, dispelling their fears and being the listening, caring and supportive partner has proved helpful in the transition process.

With this strong political will rooted in traditional values of raising children in families, the TMM Program was implemented diligently. Eighty-four percent of orphanages were closed. Children were reintegrated in families, placed in foster care or domestic adoption, and young people supported to live independently. The orphanage has become unnecessary for children, families and communities.

Child care reform has revealed itself as the engine towards strengthening child protection systems with full capacity to develop services in the best interest of the child.

Deinstitutionalization of centers for children with disabilities is in its pilot phase, implemented jointly by the National Council for Persons with Disabilities, Hope and Homes for Children and the National Commission for Children. The very first professional closure was made on the eve of the 30 ^th anniversary of the UNCRC. All children were reintegrated with their families or placed in special foster care. THIS IS WHERE THE WORK STARTS!

Some challenges occurred throughout the journey including the resistance of some institutions’ owners, managers and donors; an emerging social workforce; and lack of inclusive community day care services. UNGAC should be disseminated with the legislature, judiciary and the National Human Rights Commission to play an active role in ensuring no one is left behind. This is to reduce delay tactics of institutions’ supporters who strategically refuse to release children.

With great foundations gradually erected, all ingredients are in place for a child protection system capable to address all child protection concerns. In the coming 10 years, Rwanda will be free from orphanages and children with disabilities institutions. In brief, institutional care for children will be unacceptable. 

protection specialists, a new workforce at the community level (as mentioned in The Role of Social Service Workforce Development in Care Reform) .

Yet there is also a significant challenge in provision of planning, development and support to this frontline workforce. In celebrating reductions in violence and family separation, the numbers don’t tell the full story. We know it takes people to realize these results. Without the proper training, adequate staff numbers and remuneration, the social service workforce is not best positioned to support children, families and communities.

The Key Recommendations for the UNGA 2019 Resolution on the Rights of the Child call for the strengthening of, and provision of adequate funding to, the social service workforce. Our vision is that over the next 10 years, all social service workers will gain the funding levels and programmatic support needed to prevent family separation and ensure that all children are able to live in safe and nurturing family care. In doing so, the Guidelines will be fully realized.

This shift is the next challenge in care reform and offers a unique space for the donor community - philanthropy and government founder - to lean into. This is especially true as we consider taking family-based solutions, in line with the Alternative Care Guidelines, to scale.



Whether alternative care placements are effective, practical and scalable across cultures, countries and continents remains an elusive aspiration. Without clarity on effective approaches that strengthen and preserve families, support reunification of children and their reintegration into family, community and society, foster care and adoption, we will fall far short of our collective push for family care for all children, including those with disabilities.

 

The care community’s opportunity over the next 10 years is to shift from merely talking about alternative care to building the concrete evidence of practical alternative placements that provide safe, sustainable, family care. Our challenge, as donors, is to be disciplined in targeting our funding on the evidence, tools and approaches that can be scaled to a future in which family care for all children is the norm, and institutionalization is an approach of the past.

country’s strategy for poverty reduction and social inclusion.

There are challenges with the use of EU funds for deinstitutionalisation for children across EU Member States. Evidence from Croatia and Romania suggests that in 2018 and 2019 there have been considerable delays. In Hungary and Poland there are concerns that EU funds are predominantly used to modernise existing facilities or to build small institutions. 

Despite a generally positive trend with the development of foster care in Europe, there is still an insufficient number of foster families in Croatia, Estonia, Romania and Greece. Moreover, the child protection sector is underfinanced and lacks capacity to deal with transformation of welfare and protection services.

 

We need to make sure that the next seven-year Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) 2021-2027 will address the issues of the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care. Although negotiations are still ongoing and a final agreement will not be reached until the end of 2020, a number of extremely promising trends can be observed. The European Social Fund+ (ESF+) recognizes both child poverty and the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care as a cross-cutting issue. There is growing support for a Child Guarantee scheme , originally proposed by the European Parliament, which would allocate 5% of ESF+ (a dedicated budget of 5,9 billion euro) to tackle child poverty and social exclusion across the EU. EU political pressure & funds need to be better harnessed and there is a need for better guidance on the use of funds for both the European Commission and national level authorities.

 

We also need to give voice to and strengthen the agency of those directly affected, by engaging with care leavers associations, parents whose children are at risk, and others.

[1] The European Commission Recommendation on Investing in Children ^[1] in 2013 created some momentum as it called on Member States to use Structural Funds to stop the expansion of institutional care in Europe and promote quality family- and community- based care.

[2] Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 article 8, Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 article 5

[3] Structural Funds Watch 2018 https://eustructuralfundswatchdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/strucutral-funds-watch_inclusion-for-all.pdf

[4] https://www.openingdoors.eu/category/resources/country-factsheets/

agreeing definitions is well established. It is, however, time for some compromises. Any definition will be problematic, but agreeing one will help improve data quality. A definition with sub-categories which can be included or excluded at the country level would still allow for some variability. Institutional care is similarly defined in a variety of ways around the world. Correcting for this is difficult, given that definitions typically rely on physical characteristics and institutionalisation is perhaps best characterised by the nature of care. However, a definition of residential care with sub-categories, even if characterised by physical features, may usefully side-step this issue. We would get a sense of the types of residential care, without having to say which features classify a model of provision as institutional in all contexts.  

 

While the data challenges remain large, good examples are available, from the UK and Australia, for example. Moreover, steps to improve data have been taken in a number of countries. Notable examples include Cambodia and India. In both cases, the efforts of these two countries highlighted the difficulties of establishing a baseline and insights into the strengths and weaknesses of alternative approaches to improving data quality.  

 

In the end, data systems reflect the value states place on protecting children in alternative care. Where this value is high, the systems are good. Where it is low, they are poor. Lobbying to improve data systems may help, but real progress will only come from a shift in values and the associated acceptance by states of their responsibilities. 

achieve deinstitutionalization of these children, the progress has been very slow.

Therefore, we sought to better understand the status of the alternative care system in Ukraine, using the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children as a standard against which the quality of the system would be measured. 

Although the relevant ministries of the government did not participate, the process of using the TPI in itself was valuable for the members of the NGO group. The tool helped to brush up our knowledge of the Guidelines; get a coalesced picture of what parts of the alternative care system are in place and which are not, and helped organize relevant evidence. It enabled us to look at some “blind spots” and remember the groups of children that are not routinely seen as a target group by those working in alternative care, e.g. unaccompanied migrant children. TPI allowed us to examine legislation, regulations and services in place for addressing the needs and rights of these children, or lack thereof. As a group of organizations that plan and implement projects to reform the child protection system, the TPI has helped us to realize some of the bottlenecks that we were not aware of before undertaking the exercise.

As a group of NGOs participating in the process, we faced the challenge of how to bring the results of the TPI to the government’s attention so that they could not afford to ignore them. With the CRC reporting process taking place shortly, it was decided to use the alternative CRC reporting to convey the findings of the TPI to the government as well as the wider society. We hope that the government will learn about the gaps in its implementation of the Guidelines in the alternative care system and prioritize addressing those properly in its strategies, budgets and actions.

people, governments and donors. Their stories are moving, emotionally charged, and personal.

However, care leavers are also asking to be more than just their stories. As highlighted in a recent webinar , care leavers want to be engaged in care reform but in a way that is pro-active and reflects their agency. Whilst their stories are powerful tools for helping people to understand the effects and personal consequences of living in residential care, care leavers are also active, smart and ready to participate in care reform in other ways. This includes organizing themselves into care leaver associations and developing their own professional skills in advocacy, social work and public speaking. Care leavers want to act independently and create their own agenda and space within the sector. They don’t want to be “add-ons” and are tired of what they deem to be tokenistic approaches to their engagement.

programmes aimed at strengthening families and communities and their childcare abilities in order to prevent unnecessary separations and abandonment, in line with the necessity principle.

Finally, the strategies to support those children who leave the alternative care system have been improved: on one hand, by enhancing the inclusion opportunities of adolescents who leave the system towards an autonomous life; on the other, by strengthening families so that they can be responsible for their children and look after them adequately, preventing new separations after family reintegration is achieved.

There is still a lot to do. In the last years, thanks to the Guidelines, many entities and organisations that have been working in the field for many years, such as RELAF, have seen their working perspectives enhanced and strengthened. This celebration is an opportunity to reaffirm the commitments and to double the efforts so that, within the next 10 years, the right of all Latin American children to live in a family and in a community is guaranteed.

As a community of practice, we must now work together to ensure that children in institutions are not left behind and that the strong framework provided by the CRC and the Alternative Care Guidelines informs implementation and monitoring of the 2030 Agenda. We must guarantee that SDGs work to create the kind of inclusive and supportive societies that we want to live in, in which all children are able to flourish and fulfil their potential.

 

It is our responsibility to pull up our sleeves and assist governments and partners embarking on change. This compels us to pool our expertise to determine how proven solutions can be applied in new contexts; to agree on definitions, standards, and measures; and to prioritise support and guidance where it matters most. All of which needs to be done with a sense of humility and inquisitiveness that reflects that we still don’t have all of the answers.

Over the next decade, placing care reform at the heart of the agenda will not only shine a light on some of the world’s most vulnerable children, but will also unleash extraordinary human potential to help fulfil our ambitions for 2030 and beyond.

High-level Meeting on the 30th Anniversary of the Adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

On November 20 and 21 Member States of the UN General Assembly participated in a High-level meeting on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The  opening segment of the meeting , included statements from high level speakers such as:  H.E. Amina Mohammed , Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations; Ms. Henrietta Fore, UNICEF Executive Director; Ms. Najat Maalla, Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence against Children; and Mr. Andrew Morley, CEO World Vision, Representative from Civil Society appointed by the President of the General Assembly. It was followed by a 'kids takeover' and an interactive panel discussion. 

During the general debate of the two-day meeting, more than 100 Member States spoke about their efforts to realize the Convention on the Rights of the Child. A number of delegates made reference to the theme of the 2019 UNGA Resolution in the Rights of the Child which focuses on children without parental care, the Anniversary of the Guidelines on the Alternative Care of Children, and work in support of children without parental care. These included: Argentina, Armenia, Bulgaria, the European Union, Guyana, Hungary, Moldova and Rwanda.

The webcasts for the High-level meeting are available for  November 20 morning ,   November 20 afternoon ,  November 21 morning , and  November 21 afternoon .

Geneva Workshop: Anniversary Trifecta

On 18 November 2019, a workshop led by International Social Service Switzerland and Child Rights Connect was held in Geneva to mark the 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights on the Child (CRC), the 10th anniversary of the UN Guidelines on the Alternative Care of Children, and the 5th anniversary of Optional Protocol on the CRC on a communications procedure. The workshop was part of a  three-day event in Geneva marking the 30th anniversary of the CRC .



The objectives of this workshop were to:

Learn more about the event and access the presentations and other materials here .

View some of the short videos presented at this workshop below.

Preventing and Responding to Child Abandonment at Hospitals

The video, presented at the workshop event , features the work of the medical social work program run by Angkor Hospital for Children in Cambodia, that aims to prevent and respond to child abandonment with the goal of strengthening families to provide adequate care for their children.

The video is a shortened version of the full video, found here .

Using the Tracking Progress Tool in Costa Rica

In this video from SOS Children's Villages (Aldeas Infantiles) Costa Rica, Melissa Leiva, SOS Costa Rica's Advocacy Coordinator, shares the experience of using the Tracking Progress Tool - an interactive diagnostic and learning tool designed to enable national actors to determine the extent to which their country has effectively implemented the Guidelines and to identify the priorities for change still ahead - in Costa Rica.

Care reforms underway - a case study from Paraguay

This video from Enfoque Niñez of the Family for Every Child Alliance was presented at the workshop event . In the video, Alejandra Rodriguez of Enfoque Niñez describes care reform efforts underway in Paraguay.

Faith and Children’s Rights: A Multi-religious Study on the Convention on the Rights of the Child

Arigatou International has developed this report to mark the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This study examines the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) from the perspective of seven major religions, identifies the important role played by religious communities in advancing the rights and well-being of children over the past 30 years, seeks to identify the common values shared among different religions and the CRC and promotes continued action by religious communities to further implement the CRC in the future.

A Second Revolution: Thirty years of child rights, and the unfinished agenda

This report from Child Rights Now! reviews the situation of vulnerable children and children's rights and concludes with a call to action to improve the lives of children. The report includes a section on children in vulnerable family settings, including a brief case study on deinstitutionalization in Romania and the problems that persist there.

For Every Child, Every Right: The Convention on the Rights of the Child at a Crossroads

Published in connection with the 30th anniversary of the Convention, this report from UNICEF is intended as an advocacy tool to both celebrate the achievements of the past three decades and generate dialogue on the critical work that remains – especially for children who have been left behind.

You Have the Right to Care and Protection! The Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children in Child and Youth Friendly Language

Marking the 10th anniversary of the adoption of Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, this booklet from SOS Children's Villages International informs children and young people about their right to live in a supportive family environment in accordance with the Guidelines.

Also from SOS Children's Villages: Youth-friendly version of the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children