Search

Each year, approximately 200 million pigs are produced for consumption in the U.S., yielding 12.5 billion kg of pork products. A transformed pork supply chain could achieve the key characteristics [...]

As the global population and personal incomes rise across the globe, the demand for high-quality protein and fat-soluble vitamins, such as those found in meat, milk, and eggs, will also [...]

Cognitive biases can threaten any individual's capacity to make good decisions. For internal auditors, audit interviews pose unique settings in which cognitive biases can threaten their professional skepticism. Interviews are [...]

Research states that institutionalisation often results in negative outcomes for children’s mental, physical and emotional health and behaviour. Alternatively, deinstitutionalisation can buffer this negative impact across countries and cultures. However, these results have been inadequately replicated with children having disabilities, who are at heightened risk of negative psychosocial outcomes of institutionalisation. Owing to the large number of children with disabilities in institutional care and this seems unrepresentative and undesirable. In the current article, the cognitive, emotional, mental health, and behavioural benefits of deinstitutionalisation for children with varied disabilities in India and UK are discused. For this, the researcher’s compilation of observational data and personal reflections from 4.5 years of practical work with deinstitutionalised children with disabilities is used. Further, interview extracts and reflections from children and their adoptive/foster carers post deinstitutionalisation are included. With this, an attempt is made to advance how and why deinstitutionalisation is beneficial for children with disabilities.

This article reflects different programmes and resource components that may be promoted to keep children with either their own family or within alternative family care, satisfying the rights of their overall development. In India, the concept of promoting family-based care mechanisms through government systems has not been fully realised, owing to lack of synergy between resource allocation and existing government programmes, policies and plans of action for child protection. Additionally, the common public discourse is that Child Care Institutions (CCIs) offer suitable care and protection for children outside the parental care. CCIs continue to be identified as the ultimate and the most common response for children at risk. This practice nullifies the scope to explore opportunities for the child to live with their family or in any alternative family care mechanisms. Child in Need Institute (CINI),11CINI is a national level development organization working on establishing child-friendly communities through its work on health, nutrition, child protection and education for the last forty-five years in India.partnering with Hope and Homes for Children, have analysed the vulnerability factors that led children to arrive at the selected CCIs in Ranchi and Khunti districts of Jharkhand in India. While working with children in the communities, CINI endeavoured to understand the drivers and vulnerabilities leading to family/child separation and what mechanisms could address the vulnerabilities at source and prevent separation. CINI promoted a participatory governance process with the involvement of community-level institutions along with children’s and women’s groups, incubating safe spaces for children that aided in identifying, tracking and promoting multi-sectoral development plans for children at risk.

Residential care organisations, such as children’s homes, are well-positioned to reshape their programmes to support family-based models of care. However, new models bring unknown factors, making organisations hesitant to transition programmes. To alleviate concerns and support transition, researchers developed an experiential workshop mirroring the conditions of an organisation transitioning to family care. Workshop participants are guided through a series of activities and discussions detailing the transition of a fictional programme to a family-based model of care. The workshop focuses on six key components: engagement, case management, families, asset transitions, measurement and fundraising. The workshop also gives participants the opportunity to create a personalised plan for their programme. The goal of the current article is to present this workshop framework and share the free Facilitator’s Toolkit (https://cafo.org/ovc/sim-lab/).

Trauma-informed care (TIC) is critical in institutional settings to address not only the trauma of experiences that lead children to be enrolled into alternative care, such as childcare institutions (CCIs), but also the inherent trauma that comes from a child being separated from her or his family. This article looks at how Miracle Foundation applies principles of TIC at every stage: from intake and care at a CCI while awaiting placement, to preparing children and families for transition, and finally to supporting post-placement.Following a brief background of the trauma surrounding institutional settings and its damage on children’s development drawn from existing literature, the article defines the principles of TIC: safety, choice, collaboration, trustworthiness and empowerment. The narrative then illustrates how these principles are applied with children, families and CCI staff through capacity building, access to counselling and mental health resources and dedicated guidance by Miracle team members throughout the childcare and placement process. Training government officials through a train-the-trainer model equips them to practise a strength-based approach with children and families. This also positions us for a systematic change when it comes to developing all members of the social workforce through system strengthening.

This year marks thirty years since the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) entered into force and ten years since the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (the Guidelines) were adopted. The term ‘alternative care’ refers to the placing of children in the care of someone other than a parent. Although the seven South Asian countries – Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka – have ratified the Convention, each of the jurisdictions has reflected the Convention and Guidelines through domestic law in different ways and to different degrees. This article examines the extent to which two key child rights principles enshrined in the Convention have been incorporated into the domestic law of these countries: (a) the obligation to undertake active measures to prevent the unnecessary separation of children from their families and (b) the placing of a child in alternative care as a measure of last resort. While progress has been made across all jurisdictions, effective implementation of policies envisioned by the Convention remains elusive.

This study assesses the present situation of the deinstitutionalisation and alternative care arrangements in exile settlements concerning various cultural and socio-structural factors. It explores how elements of social structure and culture operate to transform the residential care institutions to community-based alternative care arrangements for 10,000 young Tibetans uprooted from Tibet and presently settled in India. Their day-to-day problems of repatriation and resettlement in an unfamiliar demography with distinct ethnic values are pushing them to the margins. The dependence of these children on their exile government, the host community and the uncertainty of going back to their country makes them depressed, dependent and vulnerable to trauma and negligence. The study uses cross-sectional, descriptive, exploratory and qualitative methods. Primary data were collected through in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Open-ended questions were used for interviews in order to gain in-depth information from the respondents. Twenty-five informants were selected on a purposive basis to facilitate a focus on information-rich cases that illuminate the research questions. The selection criteria of informants apply to their professional experience of deinstitutionalisation in Tibetan settlements, professionals having experience of heading care institutions, officials of the Central Tibetan Administration, people from non-government organisations, development agencies and government officials who were a part of the interventions. Respondents from both state and non-state agencies were selected for the study to avoid bias.

Orphanages harness the goodwill of volunteers, visitors and donors to generate funding. However, in recent years, evidence has emerged that in some cases children are being recruited or trafficked into orphanages in order to generate profit from this goodwill. This is known as the ‘orphanage industry’, and the recruitment of children into orphanages for the purpose of profit and exploitation is ‘orphanage trafficking’.Australia is reported to be the largest funder of residential care for children in South East Asia. In 2017, Australia became the first government in the world to consider orphanage trafficking as a form of modern slavery. This article traces the evolution of the recognition of orphanage trafficking broadly, and then focusses on recommendations made by the Australian government following the release of its 2017 Hidden in Plain Sight Report.This article analyses the emerging policy and legislative reforms that are being undertaken by the Australian government and recommends further development to ensure that funding and finances are appropriately directed to divest from orphanages and instead support burgeoning care reform in the South Asian region. Finally, the article responds to critiques of the Australian government’s standpoint on orphanage trafficking as it relates to the over-reliance on institutional care and provides clarification on why a criminal justice response to orphanage trafficking is appropriate.

Elevate Children Funders Group (ECFG), a consortium of foundations dedicated to building strong families and a life free from violence for all children, strongly believes and supports the idea that children are best able to thrive and reach their full potential when they remain with their families and communities rather than living in residential care. Years of research has shown that orphanages often expose children to serious abuse, harm and neglect, can impact a child’s physical and psychological development and is often much more expensive than family or community-based care. However, despite this evidence, the number of residential care institutions has been steadily or even exponentially increasing. Donors continue to invest in orphanages—drawing more children into institutions and away from families. To this end, this article will make a case for investing in families and communities rather than orphanages by putting a spotlight on ECFG member investments in Asia. By drawing on recent ECFG funding research and foundation investments, this article will highlight how donors can do more to help deinstitutionalisation efforts across the region.