There is increasing debate among people involved in designing alternative care for children as to whether or not small group homes are an acceptable option that is in the best interest of the children. There is no consensus on this yet. In fact, I have recently put in a bid to be allowed to do the literature review that SOS Children’s Villages is commissioning to get an overview of the research done on this.
At the DI conference in Sofia, last month, Stela Grigoras, from UNICEF, gave a presentation on some of the limitations that she feels should be placed on the use of small group homes. They seemed well thought out and reasonable to me, so I would like to share them with you:
Small group homes (SGH) should only be used as temporary placements, they are not suitable for long-term or permanent placement. Children should not be placed in SGHs for more than 6-12 months. The SGH placement can be used as a transition tool, where children can be placed either while social workers work with their familiy to allow the child to reintegrate into her family again safely, or while other family-based services are being developed (in case of deinstitutionalisation, where not all services are in place) or arranged. The objective of a placement in a SGH should be preparation for reintegration with the family, or adoption or independent living.
No more than four to six children should live in one SGH, and they should be cared for by highly trained and salaried caregivers. There should be at least one staff member present for every three to four children, at any given time. And children under the age of six to eight should not be placed in residential care at all.
The voice of the children placed in SGHs should be taken into account. To prevent SGHs turning into mini-institutions, the care given has to centre around the children’s needs. This is instead of using a one-size-fits-all approach, where the child is expected to adapt to the system, rather than the other way around. And placement in SGHs should be needs-led, not service-led. Meaning that children should only be placed in a SGH if after careful consideration it is decided that a temporary stay there, while waiting for a permanent family-based option to be arranged, is in the child’s best interest. Children should not be placed in SGHs just because they are there and because there is a vacancy to be filled.
Although I do look forward to dive deeper into the research done on this, from what I have read and heard to date, I agree with Stela Grigoras. Particularly, because it has become clear that it turns out to be very difficult to prevent SGHs from turning into de-facto mini-institutions, which come with all of the harmful effects of large scale institutions.
During the discussion after the presentation someone brought up the question: ‘But what if a child says that they do not want to be placed in a family, surely their wishes should be respected?’ This is a point I have heard made before by others, in different situations, and in my opinion the premise is flawed.
Personally, I am a strong advocate for child participation and making sure that children are heard. However, making sure that children are heard, is not the same as blindly doing what the child wants. On certain points children have a far greater insight into their own situation and needs than the people around them and their expression of this has to be taken into account. However, it is very rare for children to have a full insight into and understanding of all the facts and consequences connected to different situations and decisions.
This means that a child can express a strong opinion, but that acting directly on that will not necessarily be in the child’s best interest. If you ask a child who lives with their own family (the benefits of which he takes for granted, because they are always there) in severe poverty, who regularly goes hungry, who does not go to school, if he would like to go live in an orphanage – of which he has heard that the children there get food every day, and they get to go to school and meet foreigners who bring presents – he is likely to say ‘yes!’ This is because he cannot know or grasp the consequences of doing so.
At this point, we are all so convinced of the serious harm done by living in large-scale institutions, that even if a child should express the wish to live in one, time would be taken to talk to the child and explain that while this looks like an attractive option, it really is not. Or when a severely abused and neglected child expresses the wish to stay in his family, similarly people will work on helping him understand that it is not safe to do so. So, why then, when it comes to SGHs, are people suddenly so set on making sure that whatever the child wants, happens?
It is clear that more research is needed to be able to make a clear case for or against small group homes, but honestly, most of the research that I have seen so far, points to an ‘against’ case. And when decisions are made the best interest of the child has to always be at the centre of every step, and even take precedence over the child’s wishes.
Please share this blog to help spread awareness.
