Alternative c are in Central Asia and Azerbaijan

1. Alternative care in Central Asia and Azerbaijan

2. Current situation: Explicit policy, framework law of state programmes favouring family based care in almost all countries: Use of alternative care regulated in Laws on children’s rights and protection (i.e. Children’s Code KY); and Family Codes; Civil Codes Links with transformation of institutions (most concrete in Azerbaijan National Plan on Transformation of Institutions) Development of standards for alt. Care services have started in amlost all countries Remaining challenges: No indepth knowledge on current use of- and future projected need for family based care. Budget provisions for family based care, vague or absent Timelines for establishment of family based care indicated pnly in a few countries By-laws for family based alternative care (rulebooks guideline etc.) lacking in many cases even if primary legislation exists Harmonisation of legal acts needed Standards not developd focusing on desired outcomes for children Many child in informal kinship arrangements not monitored by State Policy and legal framework

3. Family based care Traditional: Guardianship Trusteeship « Family type homes » Informal kinship arrangements New: Foster care Residential care: Small group homes Children’s villages Large institutions Infant homes Homes for children without parental care Institutions for children with disabilities Boarding schools Correctional institutions for juvenile delinquents Types of alternative care

4. Statistics on family based v. residential care

5. Trend over time

6. Residential care Current situation: • Large scale residential institutions remain the main element of the current child care system in all countries • About 160,000 children in total in over 1000 institutions, 50-200 children per institution. • Staff ration to children is high, but majority are engaged in administrative work, but not with children Challenges: • Progress towards restructuring of institutions and development of family based care (de-institutionalization) is slow and inconsistent: • Responsibility for institutions is divided between 3 sectors (MoE, MoH, MoLSP) • New private forms of institutional care that are opening up despite of de-institutionalization policy. • Shift from large institutions to small institutions. • Increase in public expenditure to institutions • Funding per capita • Strong pro-institution attitude by professionals and public • Staff ration to children is high, but majority are engaged in administrative work, but not with children • Systematic process for restructuring & de-institutionalization has started only in Azerbaijan • Significant numbers of children returned to their families, closing of few- and transformation of other institutions but without an overall plan for the system • Retraining of staff in institutions (modern social work & foster care) has started in some countries • Remaining issues: • Systematic (planned) transformation- and de-institutionalization is yet to happen • Reallocation of resources from institutions to other types of services • Changing minds of professionals working in the system (and public) • Place all institutions (public and private) under State oversight (standards and de-institutionalization policy

7. Residential care The rate in residential care per 100,000 of child population

8. Smaller scale residential care Current situation: • Mainly in form of Children’s villages in 4/6 countries • 7-10 children per mother • Officially recognized services in Kazakhstan (Law on Family Type Children’s Villages and Youth Houses) • Funding – oblast budget or NGO • Child support allowance • Salaries for mothers-educators and other employees • 6 CV (335 children) founded by state and 3 (244) by NGO Challenges: • Not clear how linked to process of transformation of large institutions • One model: Hybrid form of residential care and « family based care » • Formalizing standards

9. Guardianship care Rates per 100,000 children, 2007

10. Guardianship care Current situation: • Developed primary and secondary legislation • Vast majority of guardians are relatives • Guardianship bodies • Administrative procedure • Payments: No salary, child support allowances (de jure yes, de facto no) Challenges: • Implementation of payments (and relative importance) • No standards (support and follow-up) • Formalising all cases of kinship care • No uniform database

11. Family type homes • In at least 4 / 6 countries • Low number of homes (12 KY, 6 UZ) • 5-10 children per family • Profile: married couples or single, not related to children • In legal provisions, regulated as a type of « foster care » (rule book or family code) • Procedure: • Rulebooks (include procedure and organizational standards, but not care / outcomes based standards) • Parents-educators • Obligatory training in KYRA • Administrative procedure • Funding from state or local budget • Monthly child support same as for institution, salary to parents-educators, utilities allowance, housing, etc.

12. Foster care Current situation: • Regulated mainly by Family Codes, sometimes referred to as « patronat » • Contract between foster parents and guardianship body • Profile of foster parents – status of guardians • Financial support • Child support allowance (approx. 60 USD/month in Kazakhstan) • Remuneration for work of foster parents (approx. 100 USD/month in Kazakhstan) • Funding (central in KAZA and local in UZBA) Challenges: • Remains underdeveloped in most countries – increase in types, scaling up of pilots, geographical coverage • Where developed, development of standards (outcomes for children) needed. Best interests of the child to be looked after. • Links needed with de-institutionalization • Professionalisation needed – institutionalization of recruitment, screening, training, matchning, monitoing of cases and review. • Systematic support (services and financing) • Lack of uniform database

13. Adoption • Proportion of national vis-à-vis international adoption