Journal of Global Social Work Practice, Volume 3, Number 2, November/December 2010
|
Website Resource Review Reviewed by June Thoburn, Emeritus Professor of Social Work, University of East Anglia, Norwich, England This is the latest in a series of tools, manuals, and guidance made available on the web by the Better Care Network (BCN), an interagency network that focuses on the special needs of children in public care or on the edges of care, and those responsible for providing or monitoring their care (www.bettercarenetwork.org). In so doing, BCN staff and consultants work with other NGOs or international agencies, policy makers, and researchers. For those who have not yet discovered the BCN website, and are interested in learning about out-of-home care in their home territories or beyond the frontiers of their own countries and agencies, it provides a very useful and stimulating source of data on policy and practice around the world. One might not always agree with everything on the website, but it is a unique source of information, stimulation, and challenge. Two major achievements have been to work collaboratively to achieve the adoption by the UN General Assembly in 2009 of the UN Guidelines for the Appropriate Use and Conditions of Alternative Care for Children, since re-designated The Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (see http://www.crin.org/bcn/initiatives.asp for references to this stream of work) and the publication in hard copy and on the web of a Manual for the Measurement of Indicators for Children in Formal Care (see http://www.crin.org/docs/Formal%20Care%20Guide%20FINAL.pdf ). This new toolkit is a more practice-based output, which aims to put flesh on the bones of these earlier policy documents by pointing policy makers and practitioners in the direction of evaluations of practice developments and practice manuals. These documents will help policy makers and practitioners put the UN guidelines into practice in their own countries. The editors point out that the toolkit is designed to complement rather than duplicate what is on the main website and, importantly, it must not be seen as obviating the need for qualifying professional education for child and family practitioners. A user-friendly web-based resource (most easily accessed from the BCN website at http://bettercaretoolkit.org/bcn/toolkit/ ), the toolkit aims to “support practitioners around the world in planning for and delivering better care for children who need an out-of-home placement.” Those listed as likely to find it useful in their day to day practice are:
It lists, summarises, and, where copyright permits, provides direct links to the full PDF texts of “a selection of practical guides and manuals” under the headings: Developing an Informed National Care Strategy; Standards and Policies for Quality Alternative Care; Individual Assessments, Care Planning and Family Reunification; Supporting Children in Care, their Families and Alternative Caregivers; Protection and Care in Emergencies. Each entry has a brief summary giving the title, who might find it useful, why they might find it useful, and the practice settings and parts of the world where it might be useful. For each entry the editors note whether it has local, regional, or global relevance, allowing readers to decide whether they wish to follow the link to more details. Very importantly for the future development of the toolkit, there is a space and direct link to make comments and suggestions about sources the editors might consider for inclusion. The resources listed under each heading include UN and international NGO manuals, and guidelines on policy and practice for all vulnerable children, for children in care, and for groups with special needs such as children who are HIV positive. There are guidelines and manuals from particular countries (mainly from the ‘global north’ but screened for their wider relevance and also some developed in low-resource countries). Editors also looked for references to policy guidance and practice models that include the participation of children and young people in their development and monitoring. Only English language sources are included, a point returned to later in this review. As someone who has made a study of out-of-home care across national boundaries, this reviewer starts by expressing admiration for the BCN staff in attempting this potentially mammoth task. Even though the writers say that they are limiting this first version of the toolkit to English language material, the potential contents are so vast that this has to be seen as a brave attempt and a ‘work in progress.’ It is inevitably a somewhat serendipitous set of potentially useful materials and publications. A major problem for those deciding what to include is that, although aiming to be helpful to those in poor countries struggling to find the resources to develop out-of-home care services as well as to those wanting to improve a well-developed child welfare system, so much of the English language service development and practice literature is written by authors from relatively wealthy (and often anglo-phone) countries. The compilers provide a sentence about whether an entry is relevant to a specific jurisdiction or is generally relevant to rich and poor countries alike, but readers might take issue with the assignment of some as ‘globally relevant.’ The emphasis on achieving permanence through adoption and on foster family care as a short-term rather than a ‘family for life’ option, and the emphasis on the (well documented) harmful effects of large institutions for young children, will leave European practitioners who make greater use of good quality group care for children past infancy, and of foster family care as a permanence option, feeling rather left out. A few points for improvement in the near future: beyond the rather general statement that potentially relevant documents were “screened for technical accuracy, global relevance and for their emphasis on prevention, family based alternative care and reunification or alternative permanency planning” by “a broad range of experts working on care related issues,” it was not clear how the contents were decided upon and by whom. Was the detailed work of selecting materials as examples of good practice undertaken by an expert group, an individual, or a combination of the two? What are the credentials of the editors for making the selection? It is inevitable that the selection is influenced to some extent by where the compilers happened to study or on their preferred models of practice. This is always the case, but usual practice would be to list the editors and any advisory group members with their qualifications for undertaking these roles. A little more about selection methods and review/independent refereeing processes would be helpful given the potential importance of the toolkit to children around the world. I was surprised that some key internationally compiled guidance and standards documents were missing, yet some from specific countries (but not others) are included. Why, for example, is the UNICEF Manual for the Measurement of Indicators for Children in Formal Care absent from the section on programme monitoring and evaluation, and only one of the five entries in that section is specific to children in care (the prime focus of the toolkit) rather than child protection more generally? Why are there several entries on one or two commercially produced practice handbooks but not the several others with similar content? One further point that the compilers might consider: the policy and practice literature on out-of-home care is already vast, but the potentially useful literature and ‘tools’ on child protection are even more extensive. It would have made more sense to this reviewer for the selection to be more focused on out-of- home care services (including reunification), possibly touching on what might be helpful for those making decisions about which children on the edge of care are likely to benefit (or not) from what sort of placement. In the selections made, the editors seem undecided as to whether their prime focus is those providing services for children placed away from home, or child welfare/child protection practitioners more generally. More detail in the introductory sections on editorial policy and mechanisms for deciding on content would be a helpful addition. One would not want them to be overly restrictive, but perhaps there could be a line on the opening page for each entry on what review processes it has been subjected to – this might simply say, ‘compiled by a committee of national/international child welfare specialists,’ ‘in a peer reviewed journal’ or ‘recommended by several BSN web-site users in South America’ for example. Finally, if it is really to be a globally useable toolkit, content should be added at least in the major languages as well as in English. But these quibbles are made less important by the “Comments & Feedback” forms prominently placed on the ‘front-sheet’ of each entry, which invite readers to fulfil the role of ongoing reviewers of what is already included, as well as to contribute to the development of the contents. The BCN has a strong track record as a responsive network and, from the introductory comments, the editors see this as a work in progress. As such, the toolkit is an important addition to the BCN website that will be welcomed by practitioners as a rich and accessible aid to service improvement. It is important that it is widely publicised in order to serve its intended purpose. Better Care Network (2010) Responders: Better Care Network (BCN) Secretariat (Ghazal Keshavarzian, Senior Coordinator, and Kathleen Riordan, Assistant Coordinator) and Louise Melville-Fulford, Consultant The Better Care Network (BCN) is grateful to the Journal of Global Social Work Practice (JGSWP) and Professor June Thoburn for reviewing our new resource, Better Care Network Toolkit. We welcome Professor Thoburn’s important insights in further improving the toolkit. We also thank JGSWP for giving BCN the opportunity to respond to some of the questions and concerns raised in the review. As Professor Thoburn notes in her review, BCN’s goal is to be a “responsive network” and the review’s feedback will be used to further strengthen the BCN Toolkit. In the coming month, we will launch a revamped BCN website, which will include a more prominent ‘comments and feedback’ section as well as a discussion forum allowing us to regularly respond and interact with the BCN website users. Professor Thoburn asked a number of questions regarding the toolkit development process: How the contents were decided upon and by whom? Was the detailed work of selecting materials as examples of good practice undertaken by an expert group, an individual, or a combination of the two? What are the credentials of the editors for making the selection? Why are certain resources missing (i.e., non English language, key commercially produced)? Why expand the toolkit to out of home and child protection resources? These are all important questions which will be addressed below. Preliminary work on developing the Better Care Network Toolkit began in 2007. The development was a direct result of BCN website users and partners call for free-of-charge practical, hands-on resources. On the ground, field-based social work and child care practitioners are often unable to access tools to assist them in their day-to-day work relating to the care and protection of children. In response to this need, BCN decided to develop a free toolkit to provide practical resources specifically geared towards these practitioners. Initially the goal was to create a regional toolkit, focused on the Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CEE/CIS) region. Under the CEE/CIS project, a reference group was formed, themes and sub-headings for the toolkit were identified, and submission forms for social work tools were developed. Some tools were recommended and vetted by the reference group, which included social work academics, policy experts, and practitioners. However, the initiative was delayed due to lack of funds to stimulate further collection and translation of tools. Once the funds were in place in late 2008, BCN decided to move forward with the project but take a global rather than a regional approach considering the global need for practical resources. In order to gather and vet useful and technically-sound materials, and provide technical support for content development on the description of the toolkit, BCN solicited the assistance of a consultant, with extensive experience in international social work, Louise Melville-Fulford. Louise was familiar with BCN’s goals and objectives as the co-author of the BCN website text. Additional assistance was provided by two social work interns. With input from BCN’s 2,000 listserv members and a broad range of professionals working on care issues, Louise gathered and reviewed over 500 tools and developed the toolkit catalogue. Louise developed a detailed check list to verify each resource. The toolkit catalogue was subsequently reviewed by the BCN Secretariat, select members of the Steering Committee, and global Advisory Group members. This daunting process took approximately eight months and was completed with the combined efforts of an individual consultant, interns, BCN Secretariat, and a global social work reference group. To this end, Professor Thoburn’s recommendation to include more detail in the introductory sections on editorial policy and mechanism for deciding on content is an excellent suggestion and BCN will make the addition shortly. As Professor Thoburn points out, the toolkit is limited to English language resources. BCN views this as a limiting factor and one of the shortcomings of the toolkit. Unfortunately due to resource and staff constraints, at this time, BCN is unable to expand the toolkit to other languages. However BCN is open to expanding the library to other languages, if and when resources are made available. Another limitation that BCN faced was the issue of copyright and fees. BCN’s overarching goal is to share all resources free-of-charge, which limits their scope and reach. As a result, BCN is unable to include a number of key commercially produced practice handbooks due to copyright and fee restrictions. Working within these limitations, BCN decided to only include resources that upheld the international principles outlined in documents such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, recently welcomed, UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children. While BCN understands that this may limit the resources to Western Europe and North America authors, by properly vetting and reviewing each document, BCN tried to ensure that it upheld international principles and could be adaptable to local contexts. In addition, despite the call for resources from around the world (via BCN’s global network, Steering Committee, Advisory Group, and over 2,000 listserv members), BCN received very few tools from the global south. The resources that were received often did not uphold the international principles which BCN upholds and advocates for and/needed intensive editing. In order to overcome some of the toolkits limitations, BCN welcomes readers to submit new resources from across the world for review. New documents are constantly being reviewed and added to the toolkit, if relevant. The aim, however, is to keep the toolkit library to a limited number of texts that uphold international principles and the core rationale of the toolkit. The limited number also allows users to easily review, download and study each resource. This means some texts will be taken off if a better resource is located. Additionally, BCN decided to expand the scope of the toolkit to not only resources specifically geared towards provision of out-of-home care as well as child protection. BCN thought that both sets of resources would better inform practitioners and policymakers. The main intent of the toolkit is to support practitioners in the provision of appropriate care for children and the tools largely reflect this emphasis. However, recognizing that effective and well managed care provision is directly linked and supported by a broader child protection system, BCN deliberately included resources geared towards developing and functioning of child protection systems at large. This link to broader child protection capacity can serve as the underpinning of effective case management, program development, and implementation for out-of-home care. At BCN, the hope is that the BCN Toolkit will support and serve field-based child care practitioners worldwide. We hope that social work and community professionals, trainers, caregivers, children and young people in care, and policy level staff add the toolkit to their resource library and continue to share it with their colleagues and partners. And, as Professor Thoburn noted, it is important to use the toolkit comments and feedback section to inform BCN of the utility of the toolkit as well as recommendations for other materials. 1. Better Care Network is an interagency network facilitating global information exchange and collaboration on the issue of children without adequate parental care. BCN is guided by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children. BCN is administered by two person Secretariat. For more information, visit: http://www.bettercarenetwork.org/bcn/ |