At the DI conference in Sofia at the start of the month, Jana Hainsworth of Eurochild gave a ‘lessons learned’ presentation in which she gave the EU some pointers on where they need to improve their approach to encouraging the move from institutional to family-based alternative care. In the previous blog (HERE), I discussed her point that there is a need for a shared terminology surrounding alternative care. Another one of her points – and more indirectly several of them – revolved around the power that is associated with being a distributor of money.
Through the choices they make about which countries and which projects in those countries to fund, and through the conditions that they can set on the allocation of funds, the EU holds a lot of power, which can be used to bring about change. Jana Hainsworth’s point was that this power could be used more effectively than it currently is. In her words ‘EU pressure needs to be harnassed better.’
One of the issues that she pointed out, was that when it comes to funding deinstitutionalisation, enormous sums of money have been allocated to countries like Bulgaria. This is positive in the sense that it can create the means to fund the transition from institutional to family-based care, and for setting up community services and family strengthening services. However, when this money does not come with enough expert support, to assist the government in making informed decision, and when it comes with a spending deadline that leaves very little room for exploring what should be done and how to effectively develop what is needed, just ‘dumping’ this money on a country may end up doing more harm than good.
For example, instead of leading to a family-strengthening system and a community service network to prevent family separation, and the development of family-based alternative care, it may lead to simply having large-scale residential institutions broken up into small group homes – which end up being more institution-like than family-like, while the number of children being abandoned remains the same.
This way, the money is spent within the deadline and there is a cosmetic improvement, but there has been no overhaul of the alternative care system and no reduction in the number of children living without parental care. As Professor Andy Bilson put in later on in the conference, it ends up being a care reorganisation, rather than a care reform. The latter has a great potential for preventing separation of children from their families, the former does not.
I have also found that the pressure for results, whether from really big funders or donors, or from politicians who want to show off ‘their’ accomplishments (before the elections), is a very big problem when it comes to deinstitutionalisation. Both on a large-scale, as described above, and on smaller scales.
For example, at the grassroots level, during the deinstitutionalisation of one large-scale institution, where I am trying to ensure a thorough process, to make sure that every child ends up in the place best for them and to prevent placement breakdowns, every couple of months there will suddenly be a push from either the higher management of the organisation in charge of the institution, or from the local government representatives to move things along so that we can present results. I constantly have to put a lot of effort into grabbing people by the collar and pulling them back again, to make sure that no stages of the process are skipped or rushed through. Every time explaining again the risks to the children and to the entire process, if it is not done properly.
Politicians and funders generally have good intentions when they try to set up a system of accountability with deadlines. They want to ensure that the process does not stall, that it keeps moving along. However, when you are talking about something as complicated and as delicate as moving children out of institutions and setting up family-based alternatives and community services, rushing things can do enormous damage. And when people who are new to the process are initiating care reform, they are guaranteed to run in to obstacles and delays, while they figure things out. Not allowing time for this, is digging your own grave – or rather that of the children involved.
Anyone working in alternative care and child protection – or involving themselves in it through funding etc. – knows, or should know, that two fundamental principles are ‘do no harm’ and ‘the child’s best interest’. And these two principles are not well served by rushing things.
So, I agree with Jana Hainsworth. Big funders, politicians and organisations like the EU have enormous power and resources at their disposal to bring about change for the better. However, they need to be very conscious of how they use that power, in order to make sure that they do not end up causing harm.
Please share this blog to help spread awareness.