On the international stage and in discussions among child protection experts the term ‘alternative care’, referring to care provisions where children who are unable to live with their parents are placed, is used freely and confidently. On the surface, there seems to be a clear consensus about what we are talking about. However, below the surface, things are far less clear-cut.
Over the past year, and particularly the past six months, I have taken part in many lengthy discussions – often ending in a stalemate rather than in agreement – about exactly what is meant by ‘alternative care’ and particularly about what does and does not fall under the term. When you come down to the details, there is far less agreement on this than you might think. And two research projects I have been involved in over the past few years have shown that at the national level many countries do not actually have a local term with a definition and a meaning that coincides with the international understanding of the term ‘alternative care’.
This is quite problematic. Because while using the same term in discussions, we may be talking about very different things, this complicates communication, understanding, and also reaching solutions or compromises. Even though the differences are in the details, these details are not small things.
One of the points of contention is whether informal kinship care – a situation where a child is cared for by a family member or another person the child knows well, without official authorisation of the placement – should be considered a form of alternative care. Whether it is or is not has enormous implications. Because in many countries the vast majority of children without parental care are in informal kinship care, and in almost no country is there any data on the exact number of children. Also, there is a fear that if it is considered alternative care, this would lead to more regulation and need for registration, which might make informal kinship carers more reluctant to take in a child. On the other hand, increased monitoring and possibly support for kinship carers might be useful to help children and their caregivers do better.
Another point of contention is certain forms of residential (or institutional) care. In various countries, alternative care is seen as care provided to children to protect them from neglect, abuse and exploitation. If children are living in institutions – or other forms of residential care – simply in order to access education, or for therapeutic reasons, or if the residential care is not run by the state but by civil society or faith-based organisations this is not considered as falling under alternative care. So the children are not monitored under the alternative care system. Again this makes it extremely hard to meaningfully compare data from countries with different definitions.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. So I guess that 11 years after the UN Guidelines on the Alternative Care of Children came out, it might be time to try to figure out what we mean by ‘alternative care’ and whether we can reach some kind of consensus on this.
Please share this blog to help spread awareness.
