Abstract
Interviewee’s Profile
With a career spanning two decades, Khadijah Madihi has dedicated herself to being an advocate and a child rights specialist focusing on child protection, alternative care reforms and system strengthening in Asia. As the visionary behind Asia Family First, she has initiated transformative projects collaborating closely with global organisations, governments and communities. Khadija’s expertise encompasses strategic review, policy development and knowledge transfer workshops all dedicated to advancing family-based care and deinstitutionalisation. Currently, an Associate at Maestral International and a Senior Advisor for International Social Service (ISS) on Child Protection Issues, her contribution to the Asian child protection landscape is understated yet impactful. Her research publication, Take Me Home: An Overview of Alternative Care (with a focus on family-based care options) of Children in Asia, stands as a comprehensive exploration of the social welfare landscape across 10 Asian countries.
General Overview and Background
GK: Your work spans over two decades, and you’ve been involved in transformative projects for child protection in Asia. Could you share the key moments or experiences that propelled you into becoming a dedicated advocate and expert in the realms of child protection and alternative care reform? What are the changes that you have observed in policymaking in recent years?
KM: My appointment as a Child Protection Officer was a defining chapter that fuelled my commitment to transformative projects in child protection. Witnessing vulnerabilities first-hand highlighted the urgent need for comprehensive, proactive approaches to safeguard children’s rights.
Recent years have shown positive shifts in policymaking, with a growing emphasis on family-based care and collaborative efforts involving governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and communities. Policymakers now prioritise evidence-based approaches, leveraging research for targeted interventions. However, challenges persist in translating policies into tangible improvements at the practice level, requiring continued collaborative efforts from all stakeholders and more importantly investment to strengthen social service workforce capacities and competencies to meet increasingly complex child protection issues.
GK: Collaboration with government bodies, NGOs and communities seems to be a key aspect of your work. How do you facilitate effective collaboration to advance child protection and alternative care reforms in the region? Can you provide specific examples? Furthermore, could you share your experiences in engaging with communities to foster beneficial transformations in the context of alternative care?
KM: Indeed, collaboration plays a central role in advancing child protection and alternative care reforms. My approach involves fostering inclusive partnerships that harness the strengths of each stakeholder, with a key strategy being the creation of platforms for open dialogue and shared decision-making.
For example, during my time at Maestral International, I worked closely with the Malaysia Ministry of Women, Family, and Community Development and UNICEF to shape the National Child Policy and Child Well-being Roadmap. This involved extensive consultations, joint planning sessions and key informant interviews to ensure that future policies reflected the collective insights and expertise of stakeholders.
Also, I find great satisfaction in spearheading peer knowledge exchange platforms. One such endeavour was the ‘Story of Maya…Reconstructing Alternative Care Together’ workshop in Malaysia. Funded by UNHCR, EU Commission and UNICEF, this workshop fostered dialogue among communities, practitioners and policymakers, aiming to reshape alternative care practices in line with community needs and local contexts. Notably, my collaboration with care leavers and caregivers played a pivotal role, providing them with an opportunity to share their personal experiences and offer invaluable guidance to participants at the workshop. This inclusive approach aimed to foster a comprehensive understanding of alternative care practices, contributing to positive transformative shifts within the sector.
GK: As a Senior Advisor at International Social Service (ISS) focusing on Child Protection Matters, you likely encounter intricate ethical dilemmas in your work. Could you share an instance of a particularly demanding ethical quandary you’ve faced and elaborate on how you managed to safeguard the best interest of the children who were affected?
KM: Balancing the need for intervention with the obligation to maintain confidentiality is a complex task in high-risk cases. To address this, I sought input from legal experts and colleagues, opting for a nuanced approach. Prioritising the child’s safety, I pursued indirect interventions, collaborating with supportive resources and establishing close monitoring while respecting the child’s right to privacy. This experience highlighted the importance of a multidisciplinary and transparent approach to upholding ethical standards while safeguarding the best interests of the child.
GK: Based on your extensive experience, what guidance would you provide to governments, institutions and individuals seeking to enhance child protection and alternative care choices in Asia while ensuring the best interest of the child?
KM: Guiding governments, institutions and individuals in enhancing child protection and alternative care choices in Asia while safeguarding the child’s best interests requires a multi-faceted approach: Holistic Approaches: Embrace holistic strategies that encompass legal, social and cultural aspects of child protection. Tailor interventions to address individual needs while considering diverse cultural contexts. Strengthening Systems: Invest in robust systems that prioritise prevention, intervention and aftercare. Ensure that policies and practices are evidence-based, regularly evaluated and responsive to evolving challenges. Partnerships and Collaboration: Foster collaborative partnerships among governments, NGOs, communities and international organisations. Encourage shared responsibility and collective action towards child protection. Empowerment and Participation: Prioritise children’s active involvement in decisions affecting their lives. Empower them to voice their opinions and participate in matters concerning their well-being. Capacity Building: Invest in continuous capacity building for professionals working in child protection. Equip them with updated knowledge, skills and resources necessary to address complex issues effectively. Promoting Family-Based Care: Emphasise family-based care over institutionalisation, prioritising family preservation, reunification, foster care and adoption within safe and nurturing environments. Data-Informed Decision-Making: Use data to inform policies and interventions. Collect comprehensive and reliable data to identify vulnerabilities, measure progress and guide resource allocation. Legal Frameworks and Compliance: Ensure alignment with international standards like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Guidelines for the Alternative Care for Children (2009), the 2019 UN GA Resolution on the Rights of the Child and relevant provisions of other international instruments. Strengthen existing national legal frameworks and mechanisms to enforce child protection laws and rights. Awareness and Prevention: Conduct widespread awareness campaigns to prevent child abuse, exploitation and neglect. Educate communities on recognising signs of vulnerability and accessing support services. Continuous Evaluation and Adaptation: Regularly evaluate interventions and policies, allowing for adaptation based on lessons learned and emerging trends in child protection.
By following these principles, stakeholders can contribute to a comprehensive and sustainable framework for enhancing child protection and alternative care choices in Asia while consistently prioritising the best interests of every child.
Focus on Alternative Care and Aftercare
GK:Can you outline the strengths and weaknesses of various child care approaches, such as family preservation, kinship care, foster care, adoption and residential care? Additionally, can you offer insights into situations where one approach may be more appropriate than another?
KM: Choosing the right approach involves a careful assessment of the child’s safety, well-being, need for permanency and available resources and support within the child’s network. It is often a case-by-case decision based on what suits the child’s best interests at that particular time.
Strengths: Keeps children within their biological families promoting emotional stability and cultural continuity. It is less disruptive and maintains bonds as the children remain in a familiar environment.
Weaknesses: Might not be feasible in situations of severe abuse or neglect. Families may lack the resources or support needed for adequate care. It requires extensive support services for struggling families, that is, financial assistance as well as positive parenting skill training.
Appropriate Situations: (a) When the family is capable of addressing challenges with appropriate support; (b) When the safety and well-being of the child can be assured within the family.
Strengths: Offers stability within the extended family, maintaining connections. Provides a sense of belonging and cultural continuity.
Weaknesses: Relatives might face similar challenges as birth parents. It relies heavily on the relatives’ capacity and willingness to care for the child. At times, legal complexities in formalising care arrangements.
Appropriate Situations: (a) When extended family members are willing and able to provide a stable environment; (b) When maintaining family and cultural connections is a priority.
Strengths: Provides a safe and nurturing environment. Offering a temporary or long-term stable family setting.
Weaknesses: Limited availability of suitable (or trained foster carers for complex cases) foster families. Detrimental for children if faced with placement disruptions/moves occur frequently (when not suitability match at initial care placement planning).
Appropriate Situations: (a) When reunification with the biological family is the primary goal; (b) In cases where adoption or returning to the biological family is uncertain.
Strengths: Offers a permanent solution for children unable to return to birth families. Provides legal security and stability.
Weaknesses: Lengthy adoption processes. Emotional complexities for the child related to identity and attachment, that is, integrating into a new family. Potential difficulties in finding suitable carers to meet the child’s needs.
Appropriate Situations: (a) When reunification with the biological family is not possible; (b) In cases where a stable, permanent home is deemed in the child’s best interest.
Strengths: Provides structured care and specialised services for children with complex needs. Immediate refuge in emergencies.
Weaknesses: Limited individual attention due to group settings. Potential for institutionalisation effects on emotional development. Limited opportunities for family connections and normalcy, that is, in preparing the child for adulthood and independent living.
Appropriate Situations: (a) When intensive therapeutic or specialised care is required; (b) As a last resort for children with severe behavioural or emotional challenges.
Note: It is crucial to consider that children’s needs evolve, and they might require transitions between different care placements based on their changing circumstances.
GK: In your experience, what proven strategies and best practices have been instrumental in ensuring the successful reintegration of children into society after they’ve received alternative care? Can you discuss a specific project or initiative that you believe had the most significant strategic impact on advancing alternative care options? What were the key outcomes and lessons learned?
KM: Proven strategies for successful child reintegration post-alternative care centre around fostering inclusive dialogue among communities, practitioners, policymakers, care leavers and caregivers. The exchange of lived experiences undoubtedly empowered key stakeholders and policymakers to understand the challenges faced by children in care and rethink the service model to better-tailored solutions. This approach also emphasised the need for ongoing support beyond the initial reunification, advocating for aftercare services to ensure a smooth transition for children returning to society and secure the child’s long-term well-being. Furthermore, emphasising family-based care as the primary approach encouraged policymakers to prioritise developing family-strengthening initiatives for family preservation and reunification over institutionalisation. This strategic shift aligned care practices more closely with the children’s best interests.
GK: Working in child protection space often involves complex and sensitive situations. Could you share your strategies for addressing the ethical and emotional complexities that arise in your role, as well as the techniques you employ to assist children in navigating these challenges?
KM: Assisting children in navigating these challenges involves a combination of these strategies, tailored to the unique needs of each child and situation. It is about creating a supportive, safe space where children feel empowered, understood and supported as they navigate through difficult times.
Clear Ethical Guidelines: Adhering to clear ethical guidelines and professional standards to ensure decisions prioritise the best interests of the child. Regular Training: Continuous training to stay updated on ethical standards and legal frameworks, fostering a strong ethical foundation. Consultation and Supervision: Seeking regular consultation and supervision from experienced professionals to discuss ethical dilemmas, gain insights and ensure a well-rounded perspective.
Self-Care: Prioritising self-care to manage personal emotional responses, ensuring a balanced and resilient approach to challenging situations. Supervision and Peer Support: Regular supervision and peer support to share experiences and receive feedback, fostering emotional well-being and preventing burnout. Reflective Practice: Engaging in reflective practice to process emotions, analyse decisions and continuously improve professional responses.
Trauma-Informed Approach: Employing a trauma-informed approach to understand and address the impact of trauma on children’s behaviour and emotions. Therapeutic Interventions: Collaborating with mental health professionals to provide therapeutic interventions tailored to the individual needs of children. Empowerment: Empowering children by involving them in decision-making processes, ensuring their voices are heard and choices respected. Cultural Competence: Being culturally competent to understand and respect diverse backgrounds, beliefs and practices that influence children’s experiences and perceptions. Long-Term Support: Recognising that healing is a process, offering continuous support for as long as needed, and adjusting interventions based on the child’s progress.
GK: Given your extensive experience in alternative care, can you address prevalent misconceptions or myths in this field, and also shed light on your proactive efforts to debunk these misunderstandings through your advocacy and practical work?
Several prevalent misconceptions in the field of alternative care require addressing:
Reality: Institutional care should be a last resort. Family-based care options, such as kinship care, foster care, guardianship, kafala or adoption, are often more beneficial for a child’s overall well-being.
Reality: While adoption can be positive, it may not be suitable for every child. Reunification with birth families or placement in supportive kinship or foster care can offer equally positive outcomes.
Reality: Children in alternative care often come from challenging circumstances, but they are not inherently problematic. They deserve love, support and opportunities to thrive.
Reality: Each child is unique, and alternative care solutions must be tailored to their individual needs. A one-size-fits-all approach can overlook crucial factors affecting a child’s well-being.
It is crucial to challenge these myths through awareness-building, policy advocacy and demonstrating the effectiveness of family-based care models. By showcasing success stories and emphasising on evidence-based practices, we can gradually change perceptions and promote the best interests of children in alternative care. To debunk these misunderstandings:
Advocacy and Education: I have engaged in public campaigns, workshops and policy dialogues to educate communities, policymakers and stakeholders about the benefits of family-based care and adoption. Collaborative Initiatives: By collaborating with governments, NGOs and international bodies, I have supported programmes showcasing the success of family-based care, encouraging replication and adoption of these models. Sharing Success Stories: Sharing real success stories of children thriving in family-based care has been an effective way to challenge misconceptions and showcase the positive outcomes of alternative care options.
Asia Context
GK:Your extensive career reflects a remarkable commitment to enhancing child protection and implementing alternative care reforms in Asia. Can you share some notable milestones or initiatives that have made a substantial impact on enhancing the well-being of children in the region?
KM: Throughout my extensive career dedicated to enhancing child protection and implementing alternative care reforms in Asia, several milestones and initiatives have stood out, each contributing significantly to the well-being of children in the region.
One notable milestone was the establishment of collaborative platforms that brought together governments, NGOs, communities and international organisations seen in some countries. These platforms became hubs for open dialogue, shared decision-making and the exchange of best practices, fostering collective action for child protection. Through such initiatives, practitioners championed the development of inclusive policies and frameworks that emphasised the importance of family-based care and preserving familial connections. For instance, the establishment of Alternative Care Thailand stands as a vivid illustration of this collaborative effort. This coalition, composed of members from The Convention on the Rights of the Child Coalition for Thailand (CRCCT), exemplifies a partnership between multiple entities, working hand in hand with the Royal Thai Government. The primary objective here is to facilitate the full implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child within Thailand. The CRCCT operates through six working groups, each dedicated to various areas of child rights (including alternative care), ensuring a comprehensive and holistic approach to advancing children’s welfare. This initiative has been instrumental in promoting dialogues, advocating for policy changes and executing practical measures, that is, National Plan of Action on Alternative Care for Children Phase 1 (2022–2026) that prioritise the rights and well-being of children in Thailand. It is a testament to the power of collaborative efforts in reshaping policies, driving impactful reforms and ensuring a brighter future for children by placing their needs at the heart of policymaking and implementation.
Another significant milestone involved advocating for the prioritisation of family-based care over institutionalisation in policies and practices. These efforts emphasised keeping children within their families or reuniting them whenever feasible, leading to a notable shift in policy focus that centred children’s well-being in decision-making processes. This paradigm shift was exemplified by exemplary initiatives in Indonesia and Cambodia, particularly within the Families First signature programme and Family Care First (FCF).
The Families First Project, initiated by Save the Children in Indonesia, collaborated with the Indonesian Government to establish a safe family environment for children. Over the past 15 years, this project has made remarkable strides, shifting the childcare paradigm from institution-based to family-based. The programme enabled hundreds of thousands of children to return home and stay with their families while accessing education. Statistically, the number of children in childcare institutions reduced from half a million in 2007 to 100,000 in 2019. The Families First Project introduced a prevention program, including ‘Positive Parenting’ training and education for caregivers, families and those with children with disabilities. This community-based model linked communities with government services at the district level for child protection responses, establishing a child protection system within the government structure.
Similarly, FCF in Cambodia works on strengthening national-level systems and policies, directly providing and improving services for children and families. Led by the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation and facilitated by Save the Children, FCF engages more than 60 organisations to prevent family separation, increase the integration of children into family care and bolster systems and policies. This initiative operates in target provinces, focusing on providing safe, nurturing family-based care, including biological families, kinship care and foster care.
Through these initiatives, Indonesia and Cambodia have presented compelling best practice models, showcasing the effectiveness of family-based care in improving children’s lives.
Lastly, in the Philippines, a significant milestone in childcare reform was the establishment of the National Authority for Child Care (NACC). This transformation consolidated various childcare responsibilities under a single authority attached to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). The NACC, formed on 6 January 2022, gained exclusive jurisdiction over matters like legal declarations of a child’s adoption, domestic administrative adoption, foster care, simulated birth rectification and inter-country adoption. The Council, led by the DSWD Secretary, comprises members with diverse expertise and serves as the policy-making body, adapting child welfare policies to ongoing research. This shift reflects a streamlined and centralised approach, enhancing efficiency and adherence to child welfare policies. The NACC’s broader scope aims to positively impact children’s welfare and rights, ensuring a comprehensive and unified strategy for alternative child care and adoption in the Philippines.
GK: Your research publication, ‘Take Me Home: An Overview of Alternative Care (with Focus on Family-Based Care Options) of Children in Asia’, encompasses various aspects of alternative care for children in Asia. Can you elaborate on some of the key findings and recommendations from this research, and their practical implications? Could you elaborate on the key indicators or benchmarks you believe should be used to measure the impact and success of alternative care programs and reforms, especially in ensuring the rights and well-being of children?
KM: ‘Take Me Home’ delves deeply into the complex tapestry of Asian cultures, spotlighting the pivotal role of family dynamics and the evolution of caregiving traditions within these societies. It sheds light on the transition from informal caregiving, like kinship, foster care and customary community placements, towards more structured care systems. This exploration intricately showcases how cultural norms, changing family frameworks and the formalisation of caregiving practices intersect in Asian societies. It emphasises the delicate balance required between standardising care for quality and preserving deeply rooted communal, family-centric caregiving values.
Within this context, the research underscores the need for context-specific approaches when addressing family separation and diverse facets of alternative care for children in Asia. Some key findings and recommendations highlighted in the research include:
Diverse Approaches to Care: Recognise the diversity of needs across regions, acknowledging that a one-size-fits-all approach won’t effectively address varied contexts. Inclusion of Third Sector: Engage local NGOs, community-based organisations and civic societies as key drivers for change, utilising their expertise, cultural understanding and trust within communities to advocate for family-based care options. Empower the Social Workforce: Invest in training and professional development for social workers, ensuring they possess the necessary skills and local context understanding to transition children from institutional care to family-based care. National Focus and Forums: Encourage governments to prioritise family preservation efforts and alternative care in their political agendas. Foster inclusive national platforms that bring together stakeholders, policymakers and practitioners to exchange knowledge and develop comprehensive strategies aligned with international best practices. Cultural Sensitivity and Localisation: Emphasise the importance of understanding cultural nuances in care practices. Localised literature, national standards and policies should reflect diverse care practices, ensuring a better understanding and appreciation of the spectrum of care in Asia. Establish an Asian Network: Create a platform facilitating collaboration between governments and NGOs, serving as a repository for sharing policies, training resources and best practices, ultimately aligning regional frameworks with international standards. Amplify Voices of Care-Experienced Individuals: Recognise the importance of listening to the narratives of children in care and care-experienced adults, incorporating their insights and solutions into future care reforms.
These recommendations underscore the necessity for tailored, culturally sensitive approaches to alternative care, emphasising local expertise and collaboration for effective, sustainable change in the region’s care systems.
GK: In your experience, what have been the most significant policy changes or shifts in public perception that have positively impacted the provision of alternative care and aftercare services for children in Asia?
KM: Over recent years, significant policy changes and shifts in public perception have notably influenced alternative care provision for children in Asia. A pivotal change has been the prioritisation of family-based care over institutionalisation. There is a growing recognition of the paramount importance of preserving family ties and providing necessary support to families to prevent unnecessary separations. This shift emphasises family and community-based care, aiming to either retain children within their families or reunite them whenever feasible.
Moreover, there is a notable transformation in how institutions are perceived. They are no longer seen as the primary or initial option but rather as a last resort. There are efforts directed at enhancing the quality of care within these facilities, ensuring they meet minimum standards and prioritising the holistic development and well-being of children. Concurrently, gatekeeping measures have been implemented to ensure institutional care is utilised only when essential, emphasising family-based care whenever possible.
These evolving policies and shifts in public attitudes signify a collective commitment towards advancing family-centred care approaches, enhancing access to critical services and aligning local frameworks with global standards. This joint effort aims to cultivate a more supportive and nurturing environment for children across Asia, promoting their well-being and ensuring they thrive within familial settings whenever feasible.
GK: Aftercare for children transitioning out of care is a vital aspect of child protection. Could you share insights into the challenges and best practices you’ve encountered in ensuring the well-being and successful reintegration of children in Asia?
KM: The development of after-care services remains a crucial yet under-addressed aspect of child protection in Asia.
Lack of Comprehensive Support: One major challenge is the absence of comprehensive aftercare services tailored to individual needs. Aftercare services for children transitioning out of care are often limited or insufficiently developed. A glaring gap, leaving many youths without adequate support, that is, housing, education, employment and mental health services, leads to challenges in their reintegration into society and their transition into independent living. Limited Resources and Funding: Aftercare services often suffer from inadequate resources and funding. The scarcity of resources and funding allocated specifically for aftercare programs hampers the development and sustainability of comprehensive support systems. Social Stigma and Discrimination: Stigma and discrimination against care leavers persist in society. This could hinder their access to opportunities and support networks. Coordination and Collaboration: Lack of coordination and collaboration between various stakeholders involved in aftercare, including government agencies, NGOs and community organisations. This can result in fragmented support systems.
Innovative approaches, when adapted to individual needs, significantly enhance the successful reintegration of children from care settings into society. They not only address immediate requirements but also lay the groundwork for their long-term well-being and self-sufficiency.
Tailored Support Programs: Designing individualised aftercare plans and personalised support programs to address the specific needs of each child transitioning from care. These programs encompass educational, vocational and emotional support, ensuring a holistic approach to their reintegration. Mentorship and Guidance: Providing mentorship and guidance through trained individuals or peer networks. This mentorship aids in navigating challenges, offers emotional support and assists in skill-building crucial for independent living. Empowerment and Participation: Involving young adults in the design and implementation of aftercare programs ensures services are relevant and responsive to their needs, empowering them to be active participants in their own transitions. Continuity of Care: Ensuring a smooth transition by maintaining connections with trusted caregivers and ensuring continued access to essential services such as mental health support, counselling and healthcare even after leaving care settings. This continuity of care helps in addressing any ongoing needs the children may have. Life Skills Training: Comprehensive training in life skills such as budgeting, household management, job seeking and social interaction to equip children with the tools necessary for independent living. Community Integration Initiatives: Initiatives focusing on community integration and social inclusion to prevent isolation and foster a sense of belonging. These programs encourage participation in community activities and engagement with local resources. Long-term Support Networks: Building sustainable support networks for transitioning youth, including mentorship programs, peer support groups and access to community resources, aids in their successful reintegration. Implementing robust follow-up systems to monitor the well-being and progress of children post-transition. Regular check-ins and support networks help in addressing any emerging challenges. Peer Support Networks: Establishing peer support groups or networks where individuals who have gone through similar transitions provide guidance, understanding and a sense of camaraderie.
Addressing these challenges and implementing these best practices can significantly enhance the well-being and successful reintegration of children transitioning out of care in Asia. It requires a collective effort from governments, NGOs, communities and stakeholders to prioritise and invest in aftercare services.
GK: Could you discuss some of the cultural and social factors that influence childcare systems and policies in Asia, especially in the context of alternative care and deinstitutionalisation? How do cultural and societal norms in different Asian countries impact the design and implementation of alternative care systems for children? What strategies can be used to navigate these cultural considerations while promoting child rights?
KM: Cultural and social factors play a pivotal role in shaping childcare systems and policies in Asia, particularly within the realms of alternative care and deinstitutionalisation. In many Asian societies, a strong emphasis on family-centric values is prevalent, underlining the deep-rooted belief in the responsibility of families to care for their members. This cultural norm often influences childcare systems to prioritise family-based care options such as kinship care, where extended family members play a significant role in the upbringing of children. Additionally, the collectivist nature of several Asian cultures, which emphasises collective responsibility and community support networks, has a profound impact on childcare systems. This cultural aspect may encourage community-based care approaches, where extended families or local communities collectively contribute to the care and support of children, aligning with the cultural ethos of communal responsibility.
However, challenges may arise due to the stigma associated with certain alternative care options in specific cultural contexts. In some societies, there might be misconceptions or stigma surrounding foster care or adoption, impacting their acceptance and implementation. Understanding and addressing these cultural attitudes are crucial for the effective design and implementation of alternative care systems. To navigate these cultural considerations while promoting child rights, it is essential to adopt culturally sensitive approaches. This involves integrating local norms and values into childcare policies and programs, ensuring interventions respect and align with the cultural context of the communities they serve. Community engagement and education play a vital role in dispelling myths and stigma associated with alternative care, fostering a better understanding of child rights and care alternatives within the community.
Tailoring interventions to accommodate diverse cultural contexts while adhering to child rights principles is key. Collaborative partnerships with local community leaders, religious institutions and influential figures can bridge cultural gaps, garner support and facilitate the acceptance of alternative care options. Moreover, child participation and sensitivity are critical aspects, as involving children in decision-making processes and respecting their cultural backgrounds contribute to more inclusive and effective childcare systems that honour both cultural values and fundamental child rights.
GK: What are the key indicators or benchmarks that should be used to assess the effectiveness of child protection systems and alternative care reforms in Asia? How do you measure the success of these programs?
KM: Measuring the effectiveness of child protection systems and alternative care reforms in Asia requires a comprehensive assessment based on various indicators and benchmarks:
Child Well-being: Assessing the overall well-being of children involved in these systems is crucial. Indicators such as health outcomes, educational attainment, emotional stability and social integration provide insights into their holistic development. Placement Stability: Monitoring the stability and continuity of placements within alternative care settings is essential. Low placement disruptions indicate better stability and support for children. Family Reintegration Rates: Evaluating the success rates of reintegrating children back into their families when safe and possible is a pivotal indicator. Successful family reunification demonstrates effective family-based care initiatives. Quality of Care: Assessing the quality of care provided within alternative care settings by considering factors like caregiver-child ratio, access to education and healthcare, and emotional support. Reduction in Institutionalisation: Tracking the decrease in the number of children living in institutions or large-scale residential care facilities, indicating a shift towards family-based care. Legal and Policy Compliance: Evaluating compliance with national and international child protection laws and policies is crucial in ensuring standards are met and upheld. Child Participation: Measuring the degree to which children are actively involved in decision-making processes concerning their care, reflecting empowerment and respect for their rights. Resource Allocation: Assessing the allocation of resources towards child protection and alternative care reforms, ensuring adequate funding, trained personnel/care staff and sustainable programs. Community Engagement: Gauging the involvement and support of local communities in promoting child protection initiatives and accepting alternative care options. Long-term Outcomes: Examining the long-term impact on children transitioning out of care, such as their educational and vocational achievements, mental health and overall integration into society.
Evaluating success involves a combination of quantitative and qualitative assessments, considering the unique cultural and contextual factors within Asian societies. Effective measurement encompasses both statistical data and narratives, capturing the multifaceted aspects of child well-being and the efficacy of alternative care systems. Regular monitoring, data collection and stakeholder feedback help refine and improve these systems over time, ensuring they adequately meet the needs and rights of children.
