Reaching for home Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries - Save the Children's Resource Centre
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
© Save the Children
Reaching for home
Global learning on family reintegration in low
and lower-middle income countriesAcknowledgements
This report is made possible by a generous • Elena Giannini, Save the Children (global
grant from the GHR Foundation. It is written emergency programming)
by Joanna Wedge, with assistance from Abby • Denis Godwin, Children and Youth as
Krumholz; the literature review was conducted Peacebuilders (Uganda)
by Lindsay Jones. • Luke Gracie, Friends International (Cambodia)
• Rebeka Kofoed, Friends International (global
The Interagency Group on Reintegration is programming)
currently chaired by Family for Every Child, • Matilde Luna, Relaf (Argentina)
and is comprised of UNICEF, the Better Care •Siobhan Miles, Butterfly Project (Cambodia)
Network, War Child Holland, USAID, the Child • Pjua Mohanto, Shakti Samuha (Nepal)
Protection in Crisis Network, World Vision, • Patrick Onyango, TPO or Transcultural
Women’s Refugee Commission, International Psychological Organisation (Uganda)
Rescue Committee, Save the Children, Retrak, • Maggui Pilau, consultant (Paraguay)
Home: Child Recovery and Reintegration • Delia Pop, Hope and Homes (global
Network, and Maestral International. programming)
• Carly Reed, graduate student researcher
In addition to the insights of the Interagency (Columbia)
Group members, the author is grateful to the • Roop Sen, Sanjog (India)
following individuals for donating their time for • Rebecca Smith, Save the Children (global
interviews, and for sharing contacts and relevant programming)
documents: • Sarah Uppard, independent consultant
• Dr Mike Wessells, Professor, Mailman School
• Lopa Bhattacharjee, Terre des Hommes (India) of Public Health, Columbia University
•C laudia Cabral, Associação Brasileira Terra
dos Homens or ABTH (Brazil) Reviewers, interviewees and their organisations
•F atimata Diabaté, Women’s Legal Association/ do not necessarily endorse all content.
AFJCI (Cote d’Ivoire)
•A nanda Gallapatti, Good Practice Group (Sri
Lanka)
2 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countriesContents
4 Summary
8 Section I - Introduction
9 Section II - Understanding separation and reintegration
12 Section III - Determining the suitability of reintegration
and developing a reintegration plan
14 Section IV - Preparation processes
27 Section V - Reunification
28 Section VI - Post-reunification support
34 Section VI - Critical issues
41 Section VIII - Principles of promising practice and
conclusions
46 References
50 Annex 1: Template for key informant interviews
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 3Summary
Introduction the community (usually of origin), in order to
receive protection and care and to find a sense
This inter-agency, desk-based research
of belonging and purpose in all spheres of life.
aims to arrive at a clearer understanding of
reintegration practices for separated children
The exclusion from this definition of adoption
in low and lower-middle income countries.
or placement in alternative care is not in any
The research pulls together learning from
way intended to diminish the validity of these
practitioners and academics working with a
options for children. However, these processes
range of separated children, such as those torn
are qualitatively different from return to family
from their families by emergencies, children
of origin; they require both different forms of
who have been trafficked or migrated for
support and different research and analysis in
work, and children living in institutions or on
order to develop useful recommendations.
the streets. Practitioners and researchers who
work with these different population groups are
Both the United Nations Convention on the
for the most part unaware of the approaches
Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and the Guidelines
and methods used in other areas of child
for the Alternative Care of Children (welcomed
protection, and this research aims to consolidate
by the UN in 2009) acknowledge the importance
experience and create opportunities for dialogue
of supporting the reintegration of separated
and shared learning. The findings are based on
children back into their families. Article 39 of
an in-depth review of 77 documents, a short
the UNCRC explicitly talks of children’s right to
online survey involving 31 practitioners and
social reintegration, and the Guidelines highlight
policy makers, and key informant interviews
that priority should be given to preventing
with 19 individuals with expertise in children’s
separation from or promoting return to family of
reintegration.
origin. Other international guidance around child
protection in emergencies and child labour also
Defining reintegration highlights the importance of family reintegration.
and children’s right to
reintegration The stages of the
There is no global definition of the term reintegration process
‘reintegration.’ There is now general agreement This paper argues that reintegration is a process
that reintegration is a process and not an event, which unfolds over months, if not years. Over
and involves more than the simple physical that period, the ultimate goal of reintegration is
placement of a separated child back within a not just the sustained placement of the child
family. Some definitions focus on reintegration to with family members, but instead concerns
family of origin, others indicate that reintegration itself with the child being on a path to a
may involve entry into a new community and/or happy, healthy adulthood. The stages of the
new family through supporting adoption, foster reintegration process include:
care or independent living. For the purpose of
this report, the narrower conceptualisation is 1. Careful, rigorous and participatory
used, with reintegration defined as: decision making about the suitability
of family reintegration, and, if deemed
The process of a separated child making what appropriate, then the development and
is anticipated to be a permanent transition back regular review of a reintegration plan.
to his or her immediate or extended family and
1. In addition to literature based on global or regional experiences, the researchers reviewed country-specific materials
from Afghanistan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cote d’Ivoire, DRC, Ethiopia, India, Liberia, Mexico, Moldova,
Mozambique, Peru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Uganda and Zambia.
4 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries2. P
reparing the child, family and Principles of
community for reintegration. Here, careful
decisions must be made about how the child promising practice
is cared for whilst awaiting reintegration, The paper suggests that, in addition to
and whether children outside of alternative ensuring support through each of the stages
care can be supported through drop-in of the reintegration process, there are
centres, or should be placed in alternative several principles of promising practice for
care. In relation to choices between different those attempting to ensure the successful
alternative care options, in line with global reintegration of children.
guidance, it is recommended that other
options than transit centres are developed; 1. Respecting the individual’s journey: A
this is owing to the fact that large group standardised approach to reintegration fails to
residential care facilities have been shown make contact with the range of experiences,
to be harmful to child well-being. Careful needs and situations that separated children
decisions also need to be made about the face. A child and his or her family need to be
speed of reintegration, with some children involved in establishing the benchmarks for
able to return to families almost immediately success and allowed the time and, as far as
and others requiring longer-term support. In possible, the resources it takes to achieve
preparing families, approaches that aim to them.
build on existing strengths to address the 2. Rights-based and inclusive
root causes of separation have proven to be programming: Staff and volunteers working
valuable. Coordinating responses from a wide in the field of reintegration should receive
range of community actors is a key part of training in children’s rights. There should be
the reintegration process. Support needs vary greater equity between the opportunities
but commonly include skills development, available to separated children with more
economic strengthening, therapeutic support attention paid to groups that are neglected
and counselling and mediation, and efforts to and/or poorly understood in reintegration
change attitudes to address the stigma that efforts, such as young offenders and children
drove children to leave their communities. in residential care.
3. C
arefully planned reunification, with a 3. Gendered perspective: Reintegration
recognition that the moment of first contact programmes must adopt a gendered
with family and community is an important perspective to ensure awareness of and
one, and that children may have ambivalent sensitivity to the special circumstances and
feelings about returning home, even when experiences of separated girls, such as those
they do so willingly. relating to sexual health, stigma, and cultural
4. E
xtensive follow-up support. This gender biases. In addition, the reintegration of
commonly includes household-level economic sexually-exploited boys must be given better
support, which must be offered through consideration.
specialist agencies. Support for children’s 4. Child participation: Decisions about
education is seen as vital, and both peers reintegration should be made with children,
and siblings play a crucial role in successful and not for children, resulting in more relevant
reintegration. Given the overarching shift to and responsive reintegration support. Staff
a systems approach to protecting children, (and volunteers) need to be chosen, trained
follow-up support is increasingly offered and supported to enable this approach with
through a wider programme for all vulnerable children, as it does not come easily to many
households at the community level. adults, even when well-intentioned.
5. Taking a holistic view of the child: In
developing reintegration programmes, it is
important to consider the range of factors that
affect child well-being including: household
economic security; legal identity; education,
training and employment; self-esteem and
confidence; stigma and discrimination;
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 5spiritual, cultural and religious connections; are created with local actors, including
and exposure to violence, abuse or neglect. the children in question, and that creative
6. S tandard operating procedures and and thoughtful ways of programming are
national guidelines: Individual agencies enabled that shift power to the community
should develop written standard operating in order to achieve improved relevance and
procedures (SOPs) that fall within national and sustainability.
global guidance. This is not a quick initiative, 11. Long-term investment: Reintegration
but a process that brings together staff, support is not something that can be offered
children, their families and others to develop to children on a temporary basis, as it
common goals and procedures. requires dedication, consistency and quality
7. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation: – all of which require a long-term investment
Organisations should have an effective system in time, funding, and resources. That said,
to track the impact of their programme organisations should devise exit strategies
activities. This should include a strong record to avoid dependence on the services of the
keeping system, ethical data collection agency, and to promote local ownership of
methods for use with children that include reintegration processes.
sensitively and appropriately gathering their
views, and robust mechanisms to assess the
multiple components of child well-being.
Moving forward
8. C oordination and collaboration: This is Many of the principles of promising practice
essential in the context of low and lower- outlined above are not currently adhered
middle income countries where funding and to. For example, commonly: the impact of
resources will inevitably be in short supply. A reintegration programmes is poorly assessed
clearly articulated need to coordinate efforts or not assessed at all; local ownership and
can be a catalyst for governments to get coordination between actors is weak, and the
involved in reintegration efforts and to live up specific needs of girls are not recognised within
to their responsibility to protect and promote programmes. Additional issues include the
the well-being of their youngest citizens. It following.
is also a reminder for agencies to respect
other actors’ specialisations, especially in • Insufficient attention is paid to addressing
providing quality therapeutic interventions and the root causes of separation, leading to re-
economic strengthening. A critical aspect of separation in many cases.
this principle is mapping the local community • Limited attention has been given to
and devising a strategy to maximise its ability assessing the cost-effectiveness of different
to support children. interventions.
9. C ultural and family sensitivity: Respect • Agencies face challenges in determining
for local ways of knowing and doing is the degree to which programmes should
important for devising strategies of support be targeted to support just reintegrated
that will address relevant issues, and avoiding children, or more inclusive of other
formulised programmes. Wherever possible, vulnerable groups within the community.
local stakeholders should be included in • Cross-border and long-distance
the planning around a child’s reintegration reintegration causes particular problems.
at the earliest possible moment to ground • There is limited knowledge of effective
reintegration practices in the local reality and reintegration strategies for young offenders
tap into existing local support structures. and children leaving care.
10. Local ownership: Reintegration is primarily • Children’s role in separation and
a social process and thus needs to be reintegration is often poorly acknowledged
firmly understood and championed by local and the experiences of self-reunifying
actors and the structures in which they children, who return home with no agency
operate. This entails tapping into the social intervention, are not understood.
and financial resources of the community • There is limited political will for and
that exists around the returned child. It investment in effective reintegration
means ensuring that measures of success programmes.
6 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countriesoperating procedures, as well as providing
In order to start to address these challenges, sample indicators with wide applicability.
four broad recommendations can be made for
those engaged in the design and development Across all of future work on reintegration, the
of reintegration programmes. child protection community needs to mobilise
to ensure that none of its interventions are
1. Create more opportunities for dialogue unintentionally causing significant harm to
across settings, through the continuation of children. A particular example is of the children
the inter-agency group on reintegration that trafficked across borders who are languishing
developed this research and, for example, a for months – if not years – in shelters.
common webinar series, an annual journal or
a conference on family reintegration. Achieving more successful reintegration
2. C ollectively strengthen the process of processes that lead to better outcomes for
evaluating reintegration interventions, children requires not only improvements in
through providing on-line monitoring and individual programmes, but also wider policy
evaluation training to staff in country, enabling reform in areas such as child protection,
agencies in countries with high levels of social protection, health care and education.
separation to undertake peer evaluations Ideally, such change will take place in an
and mentoring staff working with children integrated manner through the wider reform
on indicator selection. Here it is essential of child protection systems. Actors across the
to involve children in the development of sector should come together to advocate for
indicators of success. more and better use of resources to promote
3. Undertake key pieces of high-quality the appropriate and effective reintegration
joint research, including more longitudinal of children. The aforementioned research,
research, and research on the following particularly around cost-effectiveness, could
issues. be used as an impetus for wider policy
• Factors to consider when determining reform around children’s reintegration. Areas
whether children preparing for reintegration for advocacy may, for example, include
should be placed in a form of alternative national governments being encouraged to
care vs. receiving support through drop- develop and adopt evaluative methodology,
in centres, and in determining the most standards, guidelines and/or standard operating
appropriate forms of alternative care. procedures for reintegration interventions, and
•G roups of reintegrating children about efforts to ensure that child welfare workforce
whom very little is currently known e.g. strengthening includes specific measures to
reintegration from care and detention, the improve the capacity to support sustained
reintegration of girls, children with disabilities reintegration.
and children affected by HIV.
•T he role of information and communications Reaching for Home represents just the
technology in reintegration. beginning of the tearing down of boundaries
•T he economic strengthening of families at between ways of working to protect separated
risk of and ‘recovering’ from separation. children, and of building bridges towards a more
•T he cost-effectiveness of different globalised approach to assist all of them in their
approaches to post-reunification support. reintegration journeys.
•T he role of siblings and peers in a child’s
reintegration.
4. D evelop a toolkit to inform and
strengthen emerging practices around
the world. This could include a clear
definition of family and broader social
reintegration, clarification around themes,
case examples of tested methodologies for
assessment and evaluation, guidance on
developing locally contextualised standard
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 7Section I - Introduction
The family is the optimal environment for the Methods used and scope of
growth and development of the vast majority of
children (UN 1989). Yet, due to a myriad of push- the report
pull factors, millions of girls and boys around A number of different methods were used
the world are separated from their families and to compile the evidence base for this report.
deprived of much needed parental care, love Through a combination of recommendations
and support (DeLay 2003a). Their reintegration by global experts and key informants, as well
into their families and communities has become as a search of academic databases (including
a priority for child protection agencies around ProQuest Research Library, Science Direct,
the world. Yet a solid evidence base for many of EBSCO Publishing, JSTOR and Sage Journals),
the interventions carried out by these agencies almost 190 organisational reports and academic
is missing (Feeny 2005). documents were compiled and included for a
preliminary assessment, with 77 selected for
With that in mind, this inter-agency, desk- more in-depth review.3
based research aims to arrive at a clearer
understanding of reintegration practices for A short online survey was created and
separated children in low and lower-middle circulated to international child protection
income countries.2 The research pulls together networks and field-based staff and consultants
learning from practitioners and academics known to the researchers. Thirty-one people
working with a range of separated children, such responded. Finally, the researchers conducted
as those torn from their families by emergencies, nineteen interviews with key informants (see
children who have been trafficked or migrated Acknowledgments) in the field of reintegration.
for work, and children living in institutions or on The selection of these grass-roots activists,
the streets. Practitioners and researchers who practitioners and global experts was based
work with these different population groups are on recommendations by interagency group
for the most part unaware of the approaches members and other key informants.
and methods used in other areas of child
protection. Rather than dividing the literature There are some noteworthy limitations.
according to crude categories of children, Researchers were only able to read and
this research offers the first attempt to share interview in three languages (English, French
learning and promising standards of practice and Spanish). This inevitably means that some
across the board. Through this consolidation of enlightening material and informants were
experience and knowledge, the research lays omitted, particularly from parts of Asia and
the groundwork for opportunities for dialogue the Middle East. Even from Latin America,
and shared learning that will result in more despite much effort, it proved difficult to
effective programming and better support to access materials in Spanish and it was not
enable separated children to move into the next possible to draw from Portuguese sources.
phase of their lives. In addition, owing to the limits of time and
resources, the researchers did not interview
children to gain their perspectives, nor did they
2. In addition to literature based on global or regional experiences, the researchers reviewed country-specific materials
from Afghanistan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cote d’Ivoire, DRC, Ethiopia, India, Liberia, Mexico, Moldova,
Mozambique, Peru, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Uganda and Zambia.
3. That selection was made using the following criteria: i) relating to low-lower-middle income countries (as defined by the
World Bank); ii) a significant focus being on children; and iii) useful to achieve a balance across the globe, populations
and programme settings (i.e.in conflict, disaster and development settings).The only exception to these criteria was a
small group of documents on reintegration from juvenile detention facilities in South Africa, as many children came from
areas that would meet the low-lower-middle income country criteria. Please see the bibliography for the results.
8 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countriesfind substantial documentation of their voices using examples from the field to illustrate the
through the literature4;this is problematic given range of activities in place. Throughout each
the importance of boys’ and girls’ agency stage, common practices and divergences in
throughout the reintegration process. the literature and in the field are identified and
discussed, including a brief examination of
evidence about boys and girls who skip the first
Outline of the report stage of this process and are only brought to the
This document begins with an introduction attention of a child protection agency once they
to separation, narrows down the discussion are home. The report then looks at cross-cutting
to ‘family reintegration’ and then provides a critical issues, and presents emerging principles
definition of that term; it proceeds to examine of practice from the field, before concluding with
the different stages of the process – determining a vision of shared learning to guide a stronger
suitability for reintegration, preparation, and more common approach to supporting the
reunification, and post-reunification support – family reintegration of separated children.
Section II – Understanding separation
and reintegration
The issue of separated children and maintaining relationships, building self-
esteem and avoiding behavioural problems.” (p.
Poverty, disability, domestic abuse and armed
35). It is clear that efforts to both prevent initial
conflict are just some of the factors that cause
separation and to support the child returning to
separation and force children around the world
family and community life are needed.
into precarious circumstances (Smith and
Wakia 2012). Children may become separated
from their families through street involvement, The right to reintegration and
trafficking, incarceration, placement in residential
care, incorporation into armed forces and
guidance on its fulfilment
groups, or in the aftermath of a natural disaster, The United Nations Convention on the Rights
amongst other reasons. In some cases, parents of the Child (UN 1989) lays out the right of each
or other family members decide that children child who has been separated from his or her
should be separated, and in other cases family or usual caregiver to be protected, and
children leave home themselves. to be supported in returning to the care of that
family as appropriate. Article 39 stipulates that
All forms of separation increase the likelihood member states shall:
of a child’s neglect and/or exposure to
potential exploitation and abuse (Tolfree 2006; “…take all appropriate measures to promote
Tobis 2000). According to UNICEF (2006a): physical and psychological recovery and social
“Separation increases a child’s vulnerability to reintegration of a child victim of: any form of
health problems (inadequate nutrition, risk of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any
disease) and psychological difficulties in forming other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading
4. T
wo notable exceptions are No Place Like Home? (Delap 2004) and Feeling and being a part of something better:
children and young people’s perspectives on reintegration (Veitch 2013).
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 9treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. rehabilitation/restoration/integration/follow-up) to
Such recovery and reintegration shall take place refer to similar or even the same concept. This
in an environment which fosters the health, self- has caused widespread discrepancies both in the
respect and dignity of the child.” literature and in practice about what reintegration
entails and how it should be achieved. As it
The state is the ultimate duty-bearer in this stands, global practice lacks cohesion, resulting
regard; however, the responsibility and obligation in a broad range of concepts and approaches,
to protect children and promote their reintegration involving a wide array of actors, children, and
fall on everyone in society. settings.
In 2009, the United Nations welcomed the In some cases, reintegration is understood
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children simply as the physical placement of a separated
(hereon referred to as ‘the Guidelines’), which child back within the family of origin. This view
established the primary goal of support for sees it as a singular event, culminating in the
separated children to be the return to the reunification of a child with the family, at which
biological family, or family of origin. Article 3 point reintegration has been achieved. In the case
reads: of juvenile offenders, despite growing efforts with
such international instruments as the UN’s Riyadh
“The family being the fundamental group of Guidelines and Rules for Juveniles Deprived
society and the natural environment for the of their Liberty, ‘successful reintegration’ all
growth, well-being and protection of children, too often appears to be one-dimensional – the
efforts should primarily be directed to enabling prevention of recidivism (Muntingh 2005).
the child to remain in or return to the care of his/
her parents, or when appropriate, other close However, there is a clear trend towards
family members. The State should ensure that reconceptualising reintegration as a far more
families have access to forms of support in the nuanced and complex process rather than an
caregiving role.” singular event, occurring in stages over time,
stretching far beyond the reunion of the child with
Other important international documents are his or her immediate family (Reimer et al. 2007),
also relevant for the reintegration of separated and reaching deep into the community itself
children. These include the Paris Principles (Betancourt 2010; Chrobok and Akutu 2008;
and Commitments (dealing with children Hamakawa and Randall 2008; interview with P
associated with armed forces and armed Onyango). DeLay offers the following: “Successful
groups), the Interagency Guiding Principles on reintegration requires an emphasis on helping
Unaccompanied and Separated Children (used in children re-create a sense of belonging and
emergency settings) and the Labour Convention purpose in all spheres of their life: family, school,
182 (on the worst forms of child labour). peers, and community.” (cited in Williamson
2008, p. 12). For some child protection actors,
Using this collective guidance, the global child the term is only used after the child is placed in
protection community bases its interventions for the family (Terre des Hommes 2009), although
separated children on the premise of ‘the child the vast majority articulate a longer process
within the family; the family within the community’, that also includes a preparatory phase and
though as discussed below there are cases when the reunification itself (Asquith and Turner
reintegration is not appropriate. 2008; Reimer et al. 2007; interviews with L.
Bhattacharjee, D. Godwin and C. Cabral).
Definitions of ‘reintegration’ Some actors question the possibility of children
Despite its articulation as a societal obligation, reintegrating when they either could not thrive
the term ‘reintegration’ lacks a clear and concise in or did not know their family or community
operational definition. Over the years, various of origin (McBride and Hanson 2013; personal
organisations involved in child protection have communication with E. Garcia Rolland, 8 August
attached different meanings to it, as well as 2013). This may have been because of family or
used other terms (e.g. transition/reinsertion/ societal violence, neglect or abuse by parents,
10 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countriesetc. They prefer to aim towards and speak of In order to focus the scope of this research, the
social integration or (re)integration. report focuses on ‘family reintegration’ and uses
the following definition:
In addition, there is considerable debate around
the diversity and constitution of the ‘family’ in The process of a separated child making
the context of reintegration (Feeny 2005). As the what is anticipated to be a permanent
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees transition back to his or her immediate or
(UNHCR) and the IRC’s guidance on determining extended family and the community (usually
the best interests of a child (UNHCR and IRC of origin), in order to receive protection and
2011) states: care and to find a sense of belonging and
purpose in all spheres of life.
“Family structures vary significantly across
cultures and thus, for instance, the nuclear family Thus the report does not discuss independent
is not always the most common household living,7 adoption, long-term foster care or
composition. In many societies, the child programming for those institutionalised or
‘belongs’ to the extended family: childcare is fostered children who are aging out of alternative
shared among a wide social network and children care. This definition stresses that reintegration is
can have multiple caregivers. It is important to a process, which can be completely self-driven
understand factors like this when discussing or assisted by various externally-guided efforts
family composition and relationships with the which may include planning and preparation,
child during BID [best interest determination] reunification with family and community, and
interviews.” (2011, p. 20). support and follow up.
The Guidelines indicate that reintegration exists By excluding adoption and placement into all
only with the return of a child to the biological forms of alternative care, this definition neither
parents or family of origin (i.e. extended family aims to diminish the value of these options
members or ‘usual’ caregiver). However, the for some children, nor dismiss the idea that
literature review and interviews for this research returning to families and communities of origin
indicate that a significant number of actors may not be in the best interests of the child,
consider a broader range of placements as and that in some cases, periods in alternative
successful end points of reintegration5;these care or adoption may be the most appropriate
include long-term foster care (including some choices for children. However, in line with the
interpretations of kafala)6, supporting an older Guidelines, it acknowledges that these processes
child to live independently, and domestic of placement into new families or alternative care
adoption. They feel that this wider lens helps are qualitatively different from the process of
to account for the different circumstances and reintegrating children back into their own families,
realities of separated children. requiring different forms of support for children
and caregivers.
5. In the absence of a standard definition, and wishing to generate the widest perspective on the topic, the literature review
used the following: “The process of a child without parental care making the transition back to his or her own parent(s)
and community of origin, or where this is not possible, to another family who can offer care which is intended to be
permanent though not through formalised adoption.” Key informants were asked to define the term, which was usually
personal and not institutionalised.
6. A
variety of means for providing child care for vulnerable children, recognised under Islamic law, which does not
recognise adoption as the blood bonds between parents and children are seen as irreplaceable. Kafala may include
providing regular financial and other support to children in need in parental, extended family or residential care.
Alternatively, as referenced in the UNCRC, it may involve taking a child to live with a family on a permanent, legal basis,
and caring for them in the same way as other children in the household, though children supported under kafala may not
have the same rights to a family name or inheritance (Cantwell and Jacomy-Vite 2011; Ishaque 2008; ISS/IRC, 2007).
7. A handful of agencies did explicitly mention reintegrating children into independent living arrangements. While
interventions to support this form of alternative care have many similarities to other reintegration efforts, there appear
to be some notable differences: predominantly available in towns and cities versus rural areas; predominantly with
older adolescent boys; and understandably more focus on community mediation and less on (extended) family. Further
exploration is warranted to draw out lessons learned in programming across the contexts and population profiles.
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 11children transition to a new way of living
In summary, separated children are a within a community and usually – though
widespread and troubling phenomenon not exclusively – within their immediate
because they are vulnerable to neglect and a or extended family. This report, however,
host of violations of their right to protection. focuses only on reintegration into the
Under the UNCRC, they have a right to immediate or extended family of origin, rather
family reunification and reintegration support. than encompassing adoption or alternative
While there is no global definition of the term care (including independent living) as, whilst
‘reintegration’, there is agreement that it is these may be valid choices for children,
a process and not an event, which helps they involve different processes and require
Section III - Determining the suitability
of reintegration and developing a
reintegration plan
different forms of support. home or be placed in another care option
In any discussion on reintegration, it must be must be made on a case-by-case basis,
noted that there are inevitably situations wherein considering the best interest of the child (UNGA
returning a child to the original caregivers or 2009). Ensuring best interests determination
extended family may not be in his or her best (BID) is a governmental responsibility, but it is
interests, or even possible at this point. This intensely time-consuming and specific to each
may be due to a history of abuse or other child individual. As a result, it is often a process
protection concerns, or parental incapacity that falls by the wayside or is systematically or
or death. In these cases, another care option sporadically given to UN and NGO partners;
must be sought which often aims to keep this is particularly true in an emergency setting.
the child in a family-based care setting, either The BID process hands tremendous power to
through long-term foster care or adoption. Best the agency in question, and thus it is paramount
practice indicates that the use of large-scale that organisations use their full resources to
institutions for children should be phased out, understand the situation of each child they
though smaller-scale group homes may offer are trying to assist, the surrounding context,
an appropriate temporary care option in some the full extent of the resources that can be
instances (Delap 2011; UNGA 2009). Supporting brought to bear, and any agency (or worker)
the independent living of an older child or bias; the “importance of this analysis cannot
adolescent is also an option that has been used be underestimated, for organisations risk
sparingly by agencies, where the child is seen enacting a grave disservice to the children they
to exhibit adequate maturity and survival skills are trying to help if they do not at least make
to live on his or her own or with siblings, with themselves aware of the preconceptions that
support and supervision. may be distancing them from the child’s reality
of experience” (Feeny 2005, p.8).
Decisions about whether a child should return
12 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countriesIn line with the UNCRC, most agencies have (interview with M. Pilau). As long as there is
created meaningful spaces for children to a stabilised, safe family relationship or even
participate in decision making regarding one adult relative with whom the child has an
their reintegration, sharing their thoughts and attachment, preparations to reintegrate the child
concerns. Good practice indicates that a child can commence (interview with C. Cabral).
must express a desire to reintegrate with his or
her family for the process to be initiated. If the Some agencies tend to have written tools (or
child expresses reticence to return, all agencies guidelines with criteria) to help staff assess the
surveyed explore these feelings to try to current situation of a family and its potential to
uncover the roots of resistance and see if there reintegrate the child successfully. For example,
is potential to improve the situation. In these the IRC developed a tool to help screen
cases and where distance permits, measures families or potential caregivers called the Family
such as mediation and conflict resolution have Willingness and Suitability Scale (DeLay 2003a);
been used successfully with children and while the Associação Brasiliera Terra dos
families (Williamson and Cripe 2002). There is a Homens (ABTH) and others in the Safe Families,
common recognition that the ability to explore Safe Children network use an ‘eco-map’ that
these sensitive matters rests in large part on the places the family in the middle and maps what
skills and perceptiveness of the worker, as well services it currently uses. Increasingly, agencies
as on the tools used (interviews with C. Cabral, are approaching family assessment from a
R. Sen, D. Pop, and R. Smith). strengths-based perspective that helps the
various family members articulate what they are
Likewise, it is equally important for the parents contributing to a child’s development, and thus
or caregivers to express their willingness to be is more likely to engender good will between the
reunited with the child, as both have the right to family and case worker (interviews with S. Miles,
decline. As one child suggests: D. Pop and C. Cabral).
“Before we are reintegrated our families should In emergency settings, where NGOs and UN
come and see us here, talk to us and give us agencies often assume great responsibilities for
the feeling that they want us back. The social individual children, a number of specific tools
workers also should guide us in the process.” have been developed to assist to determine the
(A child from residential care in the process of best path of reintegration for a child based on
reintegration, cited in Family for Every Child and his or her specific circumstances. UNHCR and
Partnerships for Every Child Moldova 2013) IRC’s BID guidance (2011) and the interagency
Alternative Care in Emergencies Toolkit (Melville
Many organisations start by arranging a meeting Fulford 2013)8 consider the main factors of the
with the parents or caregivers either with their reason for separation, history of abuse, both the
own staff, or with a social worker from the child and the family’s willingness to reunite, the
community, wherein discussions take place material resources available to meet the child’s
to ensure that the family is not only willing and basic needs, the physical health and capacity of
committed, but also possesses the tools and the family to care for the child, and the special
resources to be able to promote the rights and needs of the child. Where resources exist and/
best interests of the child in the home (Smith or legislation mandates it, the assessment
and Wakia 2012). This process may take many and planning for individual case management
visits; for example, one informant said that are done with workers from the relevant local
some agencies in Paraguay often contact up government department (interviews with L.
to 10 family members to get a sense of the Gracie and M. Pilau).
family dynamic and context, which can take
two to three months. Through this assessment For children who have been trafficked or
process and a dialogue with the child, they then recruited (voluntarily or not) by fighters, including
identify the most suitable living arrangement gangs, and may be at risk of (re)abduction or
8. These can be found at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4e4a57d02.html and www.cpcnetwork.org/admin/includes/doc_
view.php?ID=745.
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 13at the very least harassment, security may be a reassuring a child of the safety in returning to
major consideration in the reintegration process. the home community, or the child and family
In order to feel secure, some children formerly may determine that it is too dangerous and
associated with fighters will want assistance delay the return or move elsewhere. Similarly,
to acquire official paperwork signed by the if a child and family decide to pursue a legal
relevant authorities before they return (LeGrand case against a trafficker who still holds power
1999). Liaising with the local chief, warlord or in their community, they may decide to relocate
security forces can be an important step in or postpone the child’s physical return home
Thus in summary, it is of fundamental agency has at its disposal, as well as the
importance to undertake a thorough, skill, perceptiveness and knowledge of
participatory process to ascertain whether an experienced child protection worker.
it is in a child’s best interests to seek That plan should be reviewed during
family reintegration and to develop a plan the reintegration process, as amongst
accordingly. This assessment takes time other things, family dynamics, resource
and requires the full resources that an opportunities and security change.
Section IV – Preparation processes
(interview with P. Mohanto). at them. Perhaps as a consequence of these
As mentioned above, those working on the greatly varying circumstances, this research
reintegration of varied groups of children have found a spectrum of efforts around preparation,
demonstrated the need for well-thought-out some with very low intensity, and others with
planning and preparation as the first stage high levels of sophistication and intensity.
in the reintegration of a separated child. The This section outlines the range of common
child’s age, the causes of separation and the preparation activities, organised according
relationship of the child to the family, the nature to their focus on the child, family and wider
and duration of the separation, and the level of community, highlighting examples of promising
trauma endured are some of the factors that practice.
influence the content and level of intervention
needed during this phase. In some cases
of short separation, this phase may be very
Preparing the child
straightforward. In other cases, where the child Determining children’s identities
has not been well-treated by the family prior to For separated children in situations of armed
separation, has been in conflict with the family, conflict or where the social welfare system is
or has experienced significant violence or abuse very weak, preparing for reintegration may begin
during the separation, the level of preparation with determining their identities (Bjerkan 2005).
needed prior to reuniting the child with his Older children may be able to provide tracing
or her family will be far greater. In yet other information, but children who are younger, are
instances, it is the family or community who traumatised or have a disability cannot at times
does not wish to or feel able to receive the child, (de la Soudiere et al. 2007; DeLay 2003b). Under
and thus, substantial engagement is targeted these circumstances, it can be a challenge
14 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countriesto establish and confirm the child’s identity The model is also used in emergency settings.
particularly if he or she lacks any written proof In refugee and internally displaced persons
of identity (Melville Fulford 2013). This can be camps, organisations often establish ‘child-
fairly common in low income and/or emergency- friendly spaces’ which serve as a central point
affected countries, where children may lack for recreational and therapeutic services, as
birth records or any documented proof of who well as a meeting point for a separated child
they are. Thus agencies have to devise creative and his or her worker. In eastern Democratic
strategies to help them identify ‘home’ and ‘self’. Republic of Congo, self-demobilised (and other
vulnerable) children can access reunification and
Creating transitional space reintegration support from such centres, which
Children who are preparing for reintegration may also provide a bridge into the wider community.
be placed in some form of alternative care, or
continue to live elsewhere and be supported However as with residential programmes (see
through drop-in centres. Alternative care may below), concern has been raised over ‘charity-
include placements in temporary residential care oriented’, drop-in programmes that provide
(transit centres), or family-based placements. ‘too much’ for the children; the critique being
In this section, these differing options are that this can undermine reunification and
examined. More space is devoted to transit ultimately reintegration efforts by enabling street-
and drop-in centres as the most common form involved children in particular to continue living
of support, and therefore where the greatest independently (Volpi 2002), particularly when
amount of literature exists. However, this is in boys and girls can use the services of multiple
no way intended to diminish the value of family- agencies simultaneously (Feeny 2005).
based placements for many children. Overall,
this evidence suggests no one size fits all Transitional accommodation
approach, and the need for a range of options Transit facilities (also known as interim care
available for children. centres) provide temporary shelter and a
safe space for children to live while they are
Drop-in centres supported towards reintegration. They are most
Organisations assisting street-involved children commonly used with trafficked children and
towards reintegration often favour a drop-in former child soldiers, although variations of this
centre approach; it is seen as model which type of transitional housing do exist with other
honours the boys’ and girls’ independence, population groups, such as children living on the
reduces agency dependence, keeps streets, those who were incarcerated or were
reintegration with the family as the central domestic workers.
focus of all activities, and is a community-
wide resource for all issues on family unity. The goal of transit care, as stated by the
For example, Retrak invites street children in majority of agencies, is to promote a smoother
Ethiopia and Uganda to attend daily activities transition from separation to reintegration by
at drop-in centres where they gain access to preparing the child physically, mentally and
needed health care, education, food, counselling socially. While it is somewhat controversial,
and recreation activities, but where initiating where the child has been significantly harmed
family connections and encouraging reintegration during the separation, whether due to exposure
is the overarching goal (Adefrsew et al. 2011). to abuse, sexual violence, substance abuse, or
Retrak also demonstrates high-quality practice deprivations in basic needs, the use of good
in the collection of baseline data on all children quality, transitory care is thought by some to be
who enter the centre, usually during one-to- extremely beneficial (Williamson 2006; Jareg
one sessions with a social worker. This enables 2005). In some cases there may be also be legal
Retrak staff to “…understand the situation of requirements (e.g. with unaccompanied refugee
each individual child, to decide on the level of children or children leaving juvenile detention) or
intervention required and monitor the child’s well- security reasons (e.g. with former child soldiers
being” (Corcoran and Wakia 2013, p.14). or trafficked children) where temporary shelters
are deemed necessary.
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 15However, not all of the literature supports for some children in some circumstances,
the use of transit centres, even for children alternatives must be sought to large-scale
who have experienced trauma. Some of the institutional type transit centres for all children.
early literature on the reintegration of former
child soldiers incorporated the assumption In addition to the size of the facility and the way
that the children had been damaged by the that care is organised, the research indicated
experience and needed to be psychologically several other elements to quality care within
healed through a structured programme and/ transit centres.
or particular period of time in interim care.
Experience shows, however, that family • Engaging children in the daily running
reintegration was not just the goal for these of the transit centre: This may include
children it was central to the process of healing creating and supervising a cooking/cleaning
as well (Boothby et al. 2006; Williamson rota or it may be an advisory council to
2006). The research demonstrates that some the management; it may be determining
organisations have been inclined to take the recreational activities or some input in the daily
position a priori that time in a rehabilitation schedule. Participation is very important in a
facility is necessary to heal ‘damaged’ children. longer-term centre.
Others have argued that determination of • Developing multiple conflict diffusion
issues such as whether to place a child in a mechanisms: Some separated children
centre versus a foster family, should be based are used to a high level of autonomy and
on a technically sound individual assessment, may have significant anger and impulse
as opposed to a blanket assessment based control issues (e.g. children with addictions,
on which category the child fits into (see also former child soldiers, children who have
information below on ‘gatekeeping’ in regard to lived on the streets for an extended period).
residential care in general, which applies equally Conflict diffusion mechanisms include skilled
to transit centres). It should be noted that many counsellors who can truly listen to concerns
of the services provided by residential facilities and reframe them as realistic immediate and
could also be provided at drop-in centres or short-term steps; space to exercise and to
as community-based programmes, something express emotions safely; and a means to
which warrants further comparative research. dance, or listen to or create music (Armstrong
2008; McMillan and Herrera 2012).
The advisability of the use of transit centres • Developing children’s capacity to act
to prepare children for sustained and positive autonomously: When working with trafficked
reintegration depends not only on the nature children, participatory principles need to be
of the child and his/her experiences, but role-modelled in the centres as the children
also on the nature of the transit centre itself. may have spent many months or years
According to the Guidelines, not all residential stripped of their autonomy and ability to make
care, including transit centres, is the same. decisions.
Large-scale institutional care is acknowledged • Creating culturally appropriate
as harmful to all children owing to the lack of conditions in the transit centres that are
opportunity for attachment with a consistent comparable to those found at home: This
carer and other issues, such as enhanced risk has been shown both to promote sustained
of abuse of a child, both of which would have reintegration and to lessen jealousy from peers
immediate and longer-term negative impacts on (UNICEF 2006a). In situations where children
reintegration. Instead, the Guidelines suggest perceived a higher quality of life in the centre
that all residential care facilities, including transit (in terms of food availability, comfort, access to
centres, should be organised around small education and training, recreational materials
group care, allowing children to form bonds and psychosocial support), they were much
with carers and gain the individualised attention less likely to want to return home (LeGrand
they need. The compliance to quality standards 1999; Simcox & Marshall 2011, p.10).
of care is central for all residential type of care. • Balancing this with meeting children’s
The recommendations in the Guidelines suggest basic needs: Agency workers (and donors)
that whilst small group homes may be suitable recognise the need to ensure that their
16 Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countriescharges are as healthy and nutritiously fed as former boy soldiers indicates that a stay of over
possible before they leave for a more food- six months actually hinders children’s social
insecure setting, even if life at home may mean development and reintegration (Boothby et
periods of hunger and deprivation. They aim al. 2006). Other organisations suggest that in
to strike a balance between the importance some exceptional circumstances of entrenched
of providing high-quality transitional services inter-generational violence, an extended stay is
and the risk of creating dissatisfaction with essential towards properly preparing a child for
the home setting (interviews with S. Miles, P. the journey ahead (for example, JUCONI can
Mohanto and D. Godwin). support children up to a year or more in their
centres).
“I now have good clothes and a proper haircut;
I have proper food now as compared to before. Even with a similar population profile, results can
I now eat good fish.” (Formerly trafficked boy, vary significantly. For example, a transit centre
aged 12, living back at home in Ghana – cited in run by Save the Children in the Democratic
Veitch 2013) Republic of Congo housed former child soldiers
for a period of only one to three months with
• Locating transit centres as close to home comparable success (Bernard et al. 2003) to the
as possible: This eases the reintroduction to Mozambique case study. Even in looking at one
parents or caregivers over a period of time. population profile (trafficked women and girls) in
Several informants spoke of an ideal scenario one setting (Cambodia), the Butterfly Project is
providing opportunities for the family and finding wide variances in approaches to transit
child to meet with increasing frequency and care, including the lengths of stay (interview with
length, and with decreasing supervision. This S. Miles).
proximity can be difficult in vast, insecure and/
or under-resourced contexts or with cases These differing conclusions regarding how long
of cross-border family separation; agencies, a child should remain in residential care are likely
such as Retrak, have demonstrated that high to reflect both the different needs of individual
rates of successful, sustained reintegration are children, and the quality and purpose of the care
achievable even when the distance is large. on offer. For example, in the JUCONI example
There are also, of course, other exceptions to cited above, extended stays in small group
this rule, and some children have expressed residential care are part of efforts to provide
that distance from their communities helps extensive therapeutic support to children and
during the initial stages of reintegration, as it their families to help overcome high levels of
allows them time to heal, recover and prepare family violence and develop more healthy intra-
in peace and quiet (Delap 2011). family relationships.
• Provide adequate services and support:
Children who are preparing for reintegration While there cannot be one length of time that is
may need varying services and support suitable for every child’s individual situation, it
including counselling, education and would appear that more rigorous comparative
vocational skills training and health services. research is needed to evaluate the different
These are discussed in more detail below. approaches to the placement in and use of
use interim care facilities and to establish a
There is a significant debate around the optimal more evidence-based rationale for the time in
length of time for a child to stay in a residential transitional care. As a starting point, Melville
facility prior to reunification with the family Fulford (2013) lays out three main considerations
(LeGrand 1999), and examples from across in determining the length and level of
the globe. Many argue that a prolonged stay intervention during this phase: the length of time
in this type of setting may lead to negative the child has been separated, the experiences
consequences for the child, not the least he or she has endured and their consequences
of which is additional separation from the on his or her physical and mental health, and
family. For example, a longitudinal study of the assessed capacity of the receiving adults.
the reintegration programme at Lhanguene
Rehabilitation Centre in Mozambique with
Reaching for Home: Global learning on family reintegration in low and lower-middle income countries 17You can also read
