DCOF-UNICEF ASSESSMENT OF “STRENGTHENING SYSTEMS TO PROTECT VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CAMBODIA” DCOF-UNICEF ASSESSMENT OF “STRENGTHENING SYSTEMS TO PROTECT VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN CAMBODIA” May 15-25, 2012 John Williamson Senior Technical Advisor USAID/DCOF Peter Gross Child Protection Specialist (Alternative Care) UNICEF Headquarters This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development’s Displaced Children and Orphans Fund, DCHA/DRG, under contact #AID-OAA-M-10-00010, with New Editions Consulting Group, Inc. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Agency for International Development or the U.S. Government. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assessment team would like to express their sincere thanks to the many officials of the Royal Government of Cambodia and agency personnel who generously made their time available to meet with the team and provide information on efforts to fulfil the rights and improve the safety and well-being of Cambodian children. In particular, the assessment team would like to thank the following members of the UNICEF Cambodia Child Protection team who did an outstanding job of facilitating their visit to Cambodia and providing all necessary support in their work: Souad Al-Hebshi, Carly Witheridge, Rut Feuk, Chhaya Plong, Chivith Rottanak, Sophea Phok, Sereyvathana So, Ulrike Gilbert, Jane Kim, Vanna Lim, Kanha Heang, and Chea Bunthy. iv LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 3PC Partnership Program for the Protection of Children BEIP Bucharest Early Intervention Project BLI Buddhist Leadership Initiative CCWC commune committee for women and children CIDA Canadian International Development Agency DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DCOF Displaced Children and Orphans Fund DFID Department for International Development (UK) DoSVY Department of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (provincial level) HQ Headquarters MoSVY Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (national level) NGO nongovernmental organization OSVY Office of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (district level) UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID U.S. Agency for International Development v CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................ iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ vi INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 SOME ASPECTS OF THE CAMBODIAN CONTEXT ............................................................... 2 Economy ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Governmental Structure .............................................................................................................. 2 Children in Cambodia ................................................................................................................. 3 KEY PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES ....................................................................... 5 KEY ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 7 Changes in Governmental Systems - Strong commitment of MoSVY to care reform ............... 7 A Focus on Formal Aspects of the Child Protection System .................................................... 10 Residential Care for Children ................................................................................................... 12 Greater Recognition Needed of the Negative Impacts of Residential Care .......................... 12 Harm to Young Children ....................................................................................................... 13 Problems among Older Children When They Leave Care ................................................... 13 Re-establishing an Electronic Database on Orphanages ....................................................... 14 Understanding the Business Models of Orphanages in Cambodia ....................................... 15 Social Work Training ............................................................................................................ 15 Lack of Central Government Funding Commitment to Child Protection and Welfare ........ 15 Observations on Commune-Level Capacities and Activities................................................ 16 The Role of the Child Protection Section at UNICEF Headquarters .................................... 18 SUMMARY COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... 19 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 19 APPENDIX 1: SCOPE OF WORK FOR DCOF-UNICEF ASSESSMENT VISIT .................... 21 APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE FOR DCOF VISIT ......................................................................... 24 APPENDIX 3: LOG FRAME: STRENGTHENING SYSTEMS TO PROTECT VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ...................................................................................................... 31 vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report describes the outcomes of the joint DCOF/UNICEF visit to Cambodia to assess the three-year, DCOF-funded project on Strengthening Systems to Protect Vulnerable Children and Families in Cambodia. The assessment visit was carried out in May 2012, toward the end of the project (September 2012). Overall, the team found that much progress had been made in terms of legislative developments, such as the Prakas on Alternative Care; the development of minimum standards for residential care, now being used in regular inspections; and the development of a database for residential care facilities and the children resident within them. Other activities benefiting children directly have also taken place, such as working with the Buddhist Leadership Initiative on supporting vulnerable children and families, and the Partnership Program for the Protection of Children (3PC) that UNICEF has initiated with Friends International, which involves a collaboration of nine nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) providing services for children in a number of provinces in Cambodia. The work in Cambodia seems to have proven somewhat challenging, but government capacity is now developing and attitudes toward alternative care are showing greater understanding of those issues. However, the systems put into place still appear to require external support (much like the health and education system) in order to embed themselves firmly in governmental practice at all levels and to be useful in the development of a wider child protection system. This report discusses a number of topics, such as the continuing focus on formal child protection systems and issues related to the reliance on residential care, including the harm caused to young children by this form of care and issues faced by older care leavers. It questions the need for a very complex electronic database on residential care and its residents, briefly discusses social work training, expresses some concerns on the continuing reliance on external funding for supporting the child protection system, describes some observations on the work carried out with communes, and discusses the role of UNICEF HQ in relation to the project. Finally, the report makes the following recommendations: 1. UNICEF should support Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY), the Department of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (DosVY) and Office of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (OSVY) offices concerned, and, as possible 3PC partner NGOs, to support and monitor the adequacy of the reported deinstitutionalization or alternative placement of children from the 70 Four Square orphanages. 2. UNICEF should encourage and support MoSVY to seek the establishment of its authority at the district or provincial level to make best interests determinations for children and the authority to implement them regarding family reunification and alternative care of vii children. Such decisions should be in keeping with national policies and the Prakas on Alternative Care. 3. UNICEF should encourage MoSVY to give much more attention to the urgent need to ensure family care for young children, particularly those less than three years of age who are in residential institutions. 4. MoSVY and UNICEF should consider translating into Khmer selected documents or relevant excerpts of documents that present evidence of the impacts on children of residential care. The documents provided by the assessment team to MoSVY and UNICEF should be among those considered. 5. Before it becomes the standard for country-wide implementation, UNICEF and MoSVY should review the case management process being developed by SKY in terms of the skills it requires and, consequently, the feasibility of its being implemented in the near term by DoSVY and OSVY personnel throughout the country. It might be necessary, at least on an interim basis, to implement a system that is in some ways less technically demanding. 6. UNICEF should encourage MoSVY to establish a system for processing orphanage assessment information that combines in a realistic way manual collection of data and the incorporation of a limited and manageable amount of key information into an electronic database. 7. In the event that UNICEF submits a proposal for future USAID/DCOF funding, it should reflect attention, as appropriate, to the preceding recommendations and the observations in this report. It would also be expected that there be written plans or agreements with MoSVY and any other ministries directly involved with implementation of the proposed activities that would address the activities and anticipated results. 1 INTRODUCTION In 2008, the Child Protection Section of UNICEF headquarters approached USAID’s Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) proposing collaboration in a multi-country initiative to demonstrate approaches to strengthen national child protection systems. Cambodia was one of three countries invited to prepare a proposal. In October 2008, a DCOF team visited Cambodia to discuss proposed activities with UNICEF child protection personnel as well as governmental and civil society actors. Based on the proposal and the DCOF visit, a three-year project, Strengthening Systems to Protect Vulnerable Children and Families in Cambodia, was funded beginning May 13, 2009 and ending September 29, 2012. DCOF funding was also provided to UNICEF Guatemala and Liberia for projects to strengthen national child protection systems. In addition, funding was provided for the Child Protection Section to support the three country projects, facilitate learning from them, improve conceptual clarity regarding a systems approach, and generate learning. The total programmable amount provided by DCOF for the project in Cambodia was $1,092,024.03 USD for the three-year project. This funding was allocated to address three objectives: 1. Strengthening the national legal and policy framework, including through the development of strategies and operational guidelines to enhance oversight and delivery of appropriate family support services, referrals and placement procedures for vulnerable children. 2. Building capacity of stakeholders, including within MoSVY, local authorities and NGOs, to strengthen social work practice, and improve understanding and implementation of the laws, regulations, and procedures for family and child welfare, particularly around family preservation and alternative care. 3. Enhancing social welfare services for vulnerable children and families through developing models of good practice that demonstrate effective cooperation between provincial and district social affairs workers, commune councils, and pagodas in order to promote family preservation and diversify alternative care options for children. Particular focus will be placed on demonstrating commune councils’ roles and accountability for the most vulnerable children and families. During the course of the project, UNICEF Cambodia has worked closely with the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY) at the national level, as well as with Commune Committees for Women and Children, NGOs and other groups at local level, such as the Buddhist Leadership Initiative implemented through the Ministry of Cults and Religion. In May 2012, a joint USAID/DCOF-UNICEF assessment of the project was carried out by John Williamson, DCOF senior technical advisor (May 14-25, 2012) and Peter Gross, child protection specialist, alternative care (May 14-18, 2012). The scope of work for the assessment is included as Appendix 1. 2 The project has had many elements from the national to the local level. This report focuses on issues identified prior to and during the visit and does not attempt to describe and discuss every aspect of the project. The visitors were given excellent support by UNICEF Cambodia and its child protection team, including Souad Al-Hebshi, chief of child protection; Rut Feuk, child protection specialist; Carly Witheridge, child protection specialist; Chivith Rottanak, child protection officer, Siem Reap zone; and many other staff members, who organized an intensive schedule of meetings and site visits (Appendix 2). The assessment team expresses our deep gratitude for this thorough and extensive support. SOME ASPECTS OF THE CAMBODIAN CONTEXT Economy Cambodia is a low-income country, with a relatively young population of whom 39.3 percent are below 18 years of age.1 The national economy has witnessed impressive growth in recent years, with a doubling of the Gross National Income per capita between 2005 and 2010.2 However, the country remains heavily dependent on donor assistance—in 2010, foreign financing constituted 37.5 percent of the budget.3 In the Human Development Index, Cambodia is ranked 1394 out of 187 countries, and on the Transparency International Index it is ranked 164 out of 183 countries.5 The poverty level was expected by the World Bank to reduce to 25.8 percent6 in 2010 with differences between rural (higher) and urban (lower) residents, but high food and gas prices and substantial job losses due to the 2008-2009 global economic downturn have reversed the expected decline, creating hardship and putting some families at risk of disintegration. Migration to Phnom Penh and other major towns, as well as to Thailand, has become an increasingly common strategy for poor rural families. Furthermore, UNICEF estimates that some 90 percent of children suffer deprivation of food, water, sanitation, education, or information.7 Governmental Structure The constitutional monarchy of Cambodia has a national assembly of 123 seats and a senate of 61 seats. The country is subdivided into 23 provinces and the capital municipality of Phnom Penh. At lower levels, there are 194 districts, cities, and khans (sub-area of Phnom Penh municipality) with 1,633 communes (rural areas) and sangkats (sub-areas of cities), which in turn include approximately 3,500 villages. 1 http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications/country-and-lending-groups. 2 UNICEF, State of the World's Children 2007 and 2012; data recorded from 2005 and 2010, respectively. 3 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2732.htm. 4 http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/KHM.html. 5 http://www.transparency.org/country#KHM. 6 World Bank, Poverty Profile and Trends in Cambodia 2007 (2009) 7 http://www.unicef.org/eapro/Child_Poverty_Advocacy_Brief_FINAL.pdf. 3 Currently, the country is in a process of decentralisation (the passing on of powers and budgets to lower levels) and de-concentration (where ministries transfer some functions to lower functional levels), the D&D process. Commune8 councils were elected for the first time in 2002 and are the level of government closest to the people. Their budgets are allocated by the central government and typically have been spent on infrastructure. A commune clerk provides administrative support. Since 2007, each commune council has had a commune committee for women and children (CCWC), one of the members of which is commune focal point for women and children. Its purpose is to advise the commune council on matters related to women and children and, as possible, to find ways to address these. The provincial councillors are elected by commune councillors and are paid by the Ministry of the Interior. Currently a sub-decree is being developed to specify which functions will be transferred from ministry-level to lower levels of government, and ministries are in process of determining which functions will be devolved. Given that a number of government functions are supported by international development partners, it is concerning that DFID, CIDA, DANIDA are in the process of withdrawing from Cambodia and the World Bank is making no new commitments. MoSVY is the ministry primarily responsible for child protection issues, with personnel, including social workers,9 at provincial level (in a Department of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation – DoSVY) and district level (in an Office of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation levels - OSVY). Other ministries involved with child protection issues include the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Interior, both of which, in addition to MoSVY, register orphanages, and the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Children in Cambodia By some measures, children’s well-being is improving in Cambodia. Table 2 below reflects some significant gains between reports in 2007 and 2012. The infant mortality rate has more than halved; school attendance is up for both primary and secondary schools; and birth registration rates have tripled. Regarding nutrition, however, malnutrition rates for children less than five years of age have shown little improvement, apart from those who are underweight10 (low weight for age). The proportion of the population below 18 years of age is falling, while the overall population has increased slightly. While there are some notable improvements, severe underlying problems remain in terms of all sectors of the population being able to benefit from the increasing wealth of the country. A recent analysis of the Cambodian Millennium Development Goals highlighted good progress towards Goals 4 and 6, which relate to child health and HIV/AIDS. Goal 9 (demining) is 8 For the sake of simplicity, in this report the term “communes” can be understood to refer to both communes and sangkats. 9 The title is used to refer to functions address and does not necessarily reflect university-level training in social work. 10 http://motherchildnutrition.org/malnutrition/about-malnutrition/anthropometric-definitions-of-malnutrition.html. 4 moderately off track, but has a framework in place to achieve its key targets. Goals 2 and 3, pertaining to primary education and gender equality, are lagging but may yet be realized with additional effort. Goals 1, 5, and 7, namely poverty and hunger, maternal health, and environmental sustainability, were rated seriously off track and requiring robust intervention.11 Table 1. Key National Statistics Date of publication of data (data may derive from earlier years) 2007 2012 Population 14.071 million 14.138 million Population under 18 6.242 million 5.56 million Infant mortality rate 98 43 Net primary school attendance Boys Girls 66% 65% 84% 86% Net secondary school attendance Boys Girls 17% 11% 29% 26% Gross national income (GNI) per capita $380 $760 Adult literacy 74% 78% Under 5 malnutrition Moderate & severe stunting Moderate & severe wasting Moderate & severe underweight 45% 15% 45% 40% 11% 28% Birth registration 22% 66% State of the World’s Children 2007, UNICEF State of the World’s Children 2012, UNICEF Children of poor families are highly vulnerable in Cambodia, often facing daily threats to their health, education, safety, and overall development. In the absence of sufficient social safety nets and welfare services, some parents seek to cope by using negative coping strategies, such as unsafe migration, abandonment, and placing children in institutional care. Many children are pulled out of school to help with household chores or labor. An estimated 52 percent of children ages 7 to 14 in Cambodia have been found to be economically active. This percentage is much higher than in other countries with a similar income level. Child protection services are weak, under-funded, and under-staffed. With between one and three government social workers per district, a population of approximately 25,000 people, the capacity of the government to provide welfare services is very limited. Government social workers (of whom 42 percent will retire this year) often lack the resources and skills to provide quality support, referral, and follow-up to all families and children in need. NGOs fill some gaps, providing much-needed services and follow-up support for such children, but their coverage is 11 The Royal Government of Cambodia Ministry of Planning, “Achieving Cambodia’s Millennium Development Goals – Update 2010.” 5 typically limited and not uniform throughout the country. Coordination and oversight by the Government is very limited and inconsistent. KEY PROJECT ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES A key achievement in relation to the project’s first objective, strengthening the national legal and policy framework, was the development of the Prakas12 on Procedures to Implement the Policy on Alternative Care for Children (October 2011). One specific result related to this Prakas has been the development of a much more thorough approach to monitoring and assessing residential care facilities and the registration of children residing in them (see Objective 2 below). DCOF funds have also been used to support the process of mapping functions and resources of MoSVY, with the aim of identifying what can be “de-concentrated” to provincial-level Departments of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (DoSVY) or district-level Offices of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (OSVY) or to the commune-level. For example, the report on the functional mapping of MoSVY recommends progressively shifting the monitoring and evaluation of NGO-run orphanages to district and commune levels. Concerning Objective 2, building the capacities of stakeholders, one of the main achievements was the development and implementation of a system for detailed assessments of the quality of residential care facilities. The Department of Child Welfare of MoSVY began conducting annual monitoring visits to residential care facilities in 2008, and in 2011 a much more detailed system for assessing residential care facilities was put into use, along with bi-annual assessments. In 2011, 125 government personnel were trained regarding the implementation of the new system, “Standards and Guidelines for the Care, Support and Protection of Orphans and Vulnerable Children.” Also in 2011, 172 orphanage directors were oriented regarding the newly revised inspection forms and scoring system for assessing the quality of residential care. Previously, the assessment of an orphanage was typically done in about two hours, but with the new system, a typical assessment requires a day or more to complete. It includes an interview with each child and completion of a form. With a total possible score of 1,100, any facility scoring below 800 is sent a warning letter and given three months to make the necessary improvements. In 2011, as of October, 70 percent of the 187 centers inspected were given a score of 800 or higher, 29 percent scored between 799 and 600, and one percent (two centers) scored below 600. See Figure 1 for an example of the documents that the DCOF/UNICEF assessment team reviewed at the office of the Department of Child Welfare of MoSVY. Since 2008 the inspection formats have changed. Prior to 2011, results of the assessments were entered into an electronic database, but statistics from the new assessment forms currently have to be tabulated manually. We understand that the Ministry does not currently have the funds needed to develop an electronic database to enter the results of the new forms. The original copies of the forms for individual children, as well as on the facilities, are stored in the office of the Department of Child Welfare at MoSVY headquarters in Phnom Penh. 12 Essentially, a prakas specifies procedures for the implementation of a previously established government policy. 6 Carrying out such regular inspections and collecting this data shows a commitment to child protection that is in advance of many other countries; however, issues remain. For example, in terms of residential care, facilities not currently registered with MoSVY13 (we understand that at the end of May 2012 work will be carried out to identify exactly which these are) may not consider themselves to be subject to the minimum standards. It is the position of MoSVY that all orphanages are subjects to its review, regardless of the ministry under which they are registered. Resolution of this issue may also require inter-ministerial negotiation. In addition MoSVY needs to be able to act immediately in situations where such facilities deliver services of an unacceptable standard (See box, below, on the removal of children from the Cambodia Light Children Association Orphanage). Regarding Objective 3, enhancing social welfare services for vulnerable children and families, the Buddhist Leadership Initiative has implemented a number of initiatives with support from the project. These include:  Support to over 1,700 vulnerable families (including many affected by HIV /AIDS) and their children,  The expansion of the coverage by the National Taskforce for Orphans and Vulnerable Children from two to five provinces, and  Social services and vulnerability mapping of 117 villages in 20 communes. 13 Some residential care facilities are registered with the Ministry of Interior or of Foreign Affairs. Figure 1: Residential care facility inspection report form 7 UNICEF Cambodia’s 2009 proposal to DCOF included a logframe with objectives and intended results. Included as Appendix 3 is an updated version of that logframe prepared by UNICEF Cambodia, which includes outputs, results, and progress achieved as of May 2012. It provides a more comprehensive overview of the project’s results than the issues selectively addressed in the body of this report. The outcomes and activities noted in Appendix 3 include the following:  Significant pieces of legislation that have been passed or are in progress (e.g., on inter￾country adoption);  The Prakas on Alternative Care was completed and issued;  A significant study on attitudes to residential care was carried out;  An evaluation of the Buddhist Leadership Initiative was carried out;  Training sessions and workshops were carried out on alternative care, the civil code on emergency removal and protection orders, the new inspection system (for orphanage directors), training on the case management, and training for social workers on psychosocial development;  Professional social work training was supported;  A communication strategy and key messages on family-based care were developed; and  Twenty-seven CCWCs were trained and supported to map and respond to local child vulnerability issues. Altogether, significant progress has been made in a challenging environment, and UNICEF Cambodia deserves recognition for this. KEY ISSUES Changes in Governmental Systems - Strong commitment of MoSVY to care reform Over the three years of the project, significant progress has been made in developing and revising governmental policies and regulations, and on training personnel on child care and protection issues. Further changes include progress in connection with the D&D process. Change has been made at the policy level and there are examples of this resulting in better outcomes in the care of children. Notably (resulting from the new inspection process), a new memorandum of understanding between the Four Square Church and MoSVY indicates that the church will close 70 orphanages that it runs and reintegrate around 500 children into families and transfer some children without a family to one of the 23 registered orphanages that this church operates. The assessment team was informed that the Secretary of State for MoSVY had decided that the 70 orphanages should be converted to other purposes. While progress has been made, Cambodia's political and fiscal environment make it difficult to bring about rapid change in formal aspects of the child protection system. Governmental operations are quite hierarchical and bureaucratic and change is a slow, deliberative process requiring many steps. For example, while the Strategic Framework for Decentralisation & De￾concentration Reforms was developed in 2005, and the “Organic Law” which lays out the administrative and management structure of sub-national administration was passed in 2008, 8 MoSVY’s functions were only mapped in 2011, and decisions are yet to be made about which functions will be de-concentrated to lower levels. The Organic Law established the principle that governmental functions should be transferred to the lowest level of government possible. An example of positive action and the structural factors that complicated and delayed it is presented in the box, “An Example of Positive Action and System Shortcomings.” There are, after three years of DCOF funding, promising indications of meaningful system change. MoSVY appears to be seriously committed to a reform process, but it is clear that this process is still in an intermediate stage and that future substantive progress is possible but by no means assured. In terms of indicators of change, it does seem clear that the capacity building work that UNICEF has carried out with MoSVY has changed not only policies and procedures but attitudes and approaches of MoSVY officials as well. The Study of Attitudes towards Residential Care in Cambodia found, for example, “Some key informants described MoSVY as having been biased towards residential care in the past. However, in recent interviews conducted for this research, the prevailing attitude of MoSVY staff in Phnom Penh was that residential care should be a last resort and a temporary solution after community care options have been explored and exhausted.”14 The head of MoSVY’s Child Welfare Department told the assessment team that he had turned down at least 30 donors wanting to open orphanages, encouraging them instead to support family-based care. The assessment team was informed that MoSVY’s strategy was to deinstitutionalize 75 percent of the children living in orphanages and reintegrate or otherwise place them in family care. It was not clear, though, whether this has been stated in a public document. Multiple ministries are able to register organizations that operate residential care centers. MoSVY has the responsibility to inspect and assess all such facilities in the country, but it does not have the authority to close a center registered by another ministry, even if it falls far short of providing safe and adequate care for the children it accommodates. A senior MoSVY official also told the assessment team that the Ministry intends to compile information on how each orphanage in the country is registered, with the intention of approaching the Prime Minister with the recommendation to consolidate the process under MoSVY. 14 The Study of Attitudes towards Residential Care in Cambodia, 34. 9 An Example of Positive Action and Systemic Issues The closing of an orphanage in Siem Reap provides examples both of progress with care reform, and the slow way that this happens through the current governmental structures and procedures. There was extensive flooding around Tonle Sap during the 2011 rainy season, and on October 27 a spot check of one orphanage by the Provincial Child Welfare Department (DoSVY) and the UNICEF’s zonal office identified serious problems. There were 44 children living in a bamboo and thatch facility, which was in very poor condition. The center was not registered and had been opened by an NGO registered by the Ministry of Interior to operate an orphanage in Phnom Penh. It had no regular source of income, and the children had inadequate food and little to eat other than rice. There were no documents on any of the children living at the orphanage. In general, conditions were far below the minimum standards established by MoSVY. The findings of the assessment visit, with the recommendation to move the children to a safe environment, were made to the MoSVY Director General of Technical Affairs in Phnom Penh. Because the NGO concerned was registered by the Ministry of the Interior, MoSVY could not take direct action. The matter was taken to the Minister of Social Affairs, who then raised the matter with the Minister of the Interior, who in turn made the decision that the children should be moved. Seven weeks after the serious problems at this facility were identified, the children were moved to the orphanage run by DoSVY in Siem Reap, where they were living at the time of the joint assessment visit in May 2012. After the children were moved, arrangements were made with the NGO, SKY, to document each child and carry out a case management process to determine whether family reunification or family placement would be in their best interests. Through the case management process, accusations of sexual abuse have been made by several of the girls against one of the staff members of the orphanage, and at least one case was in process with the police. By June, a decision was to be made whether the empty orphanage facility should be closed and the children reunited or placed with families identified by SKY. During the process, SKY has been training three district social workers in case management as well as working with four other district social workers in connection with tracing family members. This case illustrates both good work to protect children as well as how slow and bureaucratic the current system is:  From the identification of children living in extremely bad conditions in late October, it took seven weeks for them to be moved to better residential care.  The decision to move the children ultimately required action both by the Minister of Social Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior. While a somewhat lengthy process, this case has demonstrated the potential for future collaboration on issues relating to residential care.  Even with the lack of registration of this orphanage, the profound inadequacy of the care it provided, and charges of sexual abuse of several children by a staff member of the orphanage, a decision on whether it will remain permanently closed was still pending five months after the children were moved.  Although family members had been traced for most of the children, action for family reunification was still awaiting formal authorization. Formal authorization was not the reason why children were not being reunified; rather the process intended to be as thorough as possible to consider all aspects of the reintegration process. The MoSVY national child protection mapping report notes that there is a gap in procedures regarding the removal of children from alternative care settings.* It seems clear that the authority for making best interests decisions and taking action on them needs to be “de-concentrated.” * Mapping and Assessment of Child Protection System in Cambodia, 38. 10 Based on a very limited exposure to the case management process that is being developed and refined by SKY, it appears to be sound and thorough. SKY is also training seven district social work personnel to implement the process. It will be important to determine what skills and training skill-level would be required for this process to be implemented throughout the country in the near term. In Siem Reap the provincial police office of Anti-Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection indicated that it intends to seek authorization from the Chief of Provincial Police to do background checks on all orphanage personnel in the province. It seems appropriate for UNICEF and MoSVY to track this initiative and determine whether it would be feasible for the GoR to mandate this type of screening country-wide. A Focus on Formal Aspects of the Child Protection System One concern with the approach that has been taken in the project is that it has focused almost exclusively on formal aspects of the child protection system (e.g., governmental structures, NGO and Buddhist Leadership Initiative (BLI) projects). This seems to be due to a significant degree to how the concept of “child protection system” has been understood by UNICEF Cambodia. “Child protection” has usefully and concisely been defined as “measures and structures to prevent and respond to violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect affecting children.”15 The concept is still evolving a “child protection system” and what it is, does, and includes. In 2008 in its global Child Protection Strategy, UNICEF defined a child protection system as “the set of laws, policies, regulations and services needed across all social sectors — especially social welfare, education, health, security and justice — to support prevention and response to protection- related risks. These systems are part of social protection, and extend beyond it. At the level of prevention, their aim includes supporting and strengthening families to reduce social exclusion, and to lower the risk of separation, violence and exploitation.” 16 At this point, UNICEF essentially defined the child protection system as including formal, particularly governmental mechanisms. A broader conceptualization of a child protection system was put forward in a 2010 working paper published by UNICEF and involved Save the Children and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.17 While the paper does not give a concise definition of a child protection system, it makes clear that such a system includes families, communities, and the state, as well as children themselves, and that it includes the whole range of formal to informal levels of activity that affect children’s safety and recovery from violence, abuse, exploitation, and neglect. Even more recent child protection system mapping and field work have drawn 15 Save the Children, A ‘Rough Guide’ to Child Protection Systems (2009): 2. http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/node/5103 16 www.unicef.org/protection/files/CP_Strategy_English.pdf 17 Fred Wulczyn, Deborah Daro, John Fluke, Sara Feldman, Christin Glodek, and Kate Lifanda, Adapting a Systems Approach to Child Protection: Key Concepts and Considerations (Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago) http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Adapting_Systems_Child_Protection_Jan__2010.pdf 11 attention to the significance if informal mechanisms at family and community levels in actually determining child protection outcomes. The DCOF-funded project in Cambodia, conceived in 2008 and initiated in 2009, has largely focused on the narrower understanding of a child protection system that prevailed at the time of more formal laws, policies, regulations, and services. One exception is the Buddhist Leadership Initiative, which the project has helped to support. It builds upon and seeks to increase the capacities of the important traditional mechanism of the pagoda both to provide some level of social welfare support to highly vulnerable children and families and to influence communities to respond positively to those who are stigmatized or otherwise in need. In Cambodia, it is important to recognize that the evolving, formal aspects of the child protection system are being developed in a context in which many decisions about how to protect children and provide for their basic needs are made by families and communities, potentially with little reference to formal aspects of the child protection system. As noted by UNICEF Cambodia, “Orphans and children separated from their parents have been traditionally cared for by extended family, informal fostering within the community or by Buddhist pagodas. This is still the case, given that the great majority of children (99.5 percent) in need of care (due to single or double orphan hood) are in informal care.”18 It seems likely that most of these decisions about the care of children are made without reference to formal aspects of the child protection system. The implication is that in future work to strengthen Cambodia’s child protection system it will be important to give attention to informal aspects of the system, as well as the formal ones, and how these do or could interrelate to increase the safety and well-being of children. The support that UNICEF has provided to commune councils is an example of the intersection of formal and informal systems (See below, “Observations on commune-level capacities and activities”). Commune councils have frequently used funds that UNICEF has provided to economically strengthen households providing kinship care. Another reason for giving at least some attention to informal aspects of the child protection system is that within governmental systems, there does not appear to be much room for flexibility or creative approaches to child protection issues. It may be that engagement with informal systems can contribute to the development of more creative approaches. The Partnership Program for the Protection of Children (3PC), which UNICEF and the government have initiated with Friends International as the lead and nine other NGOs, may be able to identify some informal child protection mechanisms and demonstrate how they can be supported or influenced. The overall objective of 3PC is in line with governmental priorities, and all the NGOs involved are using the national and sub-national system, including the tools and guidelines that have been developed by the government. It may also be able to help facilitate links between less formal and more formal mechanisms that can protect children. Within governmental systems, there does not appear to be much room for creative approaches to achieving adequate family care. Implementation of mandated approaches on identified issues seems to be the norm. The 3CP project has the promise of developing collaborative approaches and networks that may result in substantive improvements in the child protection system. 18 UNICEF Cambodia, “Briefing Note (2): Social Welfare System Strengthening in Cambodia”: 5. 12 Residential Care for Children Cambodia has had a relatively high rate of institutionalization of its children, and that rate has increased considerably over the five-year period 2005-2010. DCOF has been seriously concerned about the progressive increases in the number of children in the country in residential care, even while UNICEF has been actively engaged with MoSVY in strengthening national child protection policies and procedures regarding care and strengthening the Ministry‘s capacities to implement them. It may be, however, that a corner was turned in 2011, when the number of institutions and children in residence were reported to decline (see Table 2). The 2011 statistics still need to be verified. Also, it is not clear that these statistics on residential care centers and the children living in them are comprehensive, since there may be some that are not registered. Nevertheless, it does suggest a decline in the numbers of children in residential care, which is positive. Table 2. Residential Care for Children 2005 2008 2010 2011 Residential centers 204* 225** 269** 215** Children living in centers 7,403* 9,469** 11,945** 11,102** Total number of children in the country 6,250,000 6,247,000 5,560,000 5,560,000 Institutionalization rate (children in centers per 100,000 children) 118.00 147.00 215.00 199.00 * DCOF-funded study by Holt International ** Reports by the MoSVY Child Welfare Department The 2011 reduction is entirely due to the reported commitment of the Four Square Church to close 70 of its orphanages. The orphanages reported closed are supposed to be converted to day￾use. While this is potentially a very encouraging development, actual implementation needs to be monitored and the safety and well-being of the children assured. It is not clear that this church, which has been responsible for a substantial part of the escalation in residential care since 2005, has personnel with the necessary skills and objective judgment to make best interests determination for the children residing in the centers to be closed. It is also a concern, in terms of future community reintegration, that some children, who it is decided cannot be reintegrated into local families, are to be moved from their home communities to residential facilities in other geographic areas. This could hamper their future community reintegration. Greater Recognition Needed of the Negative Impacts of Residential Care Cambodia’s primary policy and guidance documents concerning alternative care have focused on the potential disadvantages of residential care and the problems and harm to children generally. For example, Cambodia’s Policy on Alternative Care for Children says, “several studies have shown that the placement of children in long-term institutional care can have a negative impact in terms of development and expose them to discrimination, exploitation, etc., thus highlighting the need to promote non-residential care.”19 However, what has generally not been emphasized 19 MoSVY, Policy on Alternative Care for Children (April 2006): 9. 13 in policy or practices is the differential impacts of residential care on children at different stages of life. In developing the national child protection system, it is vitally important to give attention to the different needs of children of different ages and take action accordingly. Harm to Young Children There is strong and increasing scientific evidence of the profound harm that institutional care can cause to very young children. A 2010 paper from the Better Care Network, Families, Not Orphanages, notes that: A rule of thumb is that for every three months that a young child resides in an institution, they lose one month of development. A 2004 study based on survey results from 32 European countries and in-depth studies in nine of the countries, which considered the “risk of harm in terms of attachment disorder, developmental delay and neural atrophy in the developing brain reached the conclusion that… NO child under three years should be placed in a residential care institution without a parent/primary caregiver.”20 A longitudinal study by the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP) compared over time the outcomes for a randomly selected group of children under two years of age who were moved from an institution and placed in high-quality foster care with their age-mates who remained. It found that young children placed in family care before the age of two made dramatic developmental gains across several physical, cognitive, and emotional development measures. In comparison, the condition of the children who remained in institutional care worsened considerably.21 Other research in Central and Eastern Europe has led to similar conclusions, including a meta-analysis of 75 studies (more than 3,800 children in 19 countries) found that children reared in orphanages had, on average, an IQ 20 points lower than their peers in foster care.22 The evidence shows that among very young children, particularly those under three years of age, institutional care is crippling their potential and limiting their future. By extension, the negative effects on these children affects national economic and social growth and development – the more so, the more children are placed in this form of care. During the course of the joint visit, the team provided copies of studies concerning the impacts of institutional care on young children to representatives of MoSVY, UNICEF, and Friends International. Problems among Older Children When They Leave Care While the impacts of institutional care on young children has been the subject of numerous studies, also extremely important but much less well documented are the long-term effects on those who grow up in care and lose connections with their families and communities. Essentially, children learn what they live, and children growing up in residential institutions often learn to be “professional orphans,” expecting their basic needs will be provided for while not having opportunities to learn many of the basic social and cultural lessons and expectations 20 John Williamson and Aaron Greenberg, p. 6. The original sources cited in this quote are Gudbrandsson, Bragi, “Rights of Children at Risk and in Care” (provisional edition, prepared for the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Family Affairs, Lisbon, pt May, 16-17, 2006). 21 A summary of the BIEP findings are provided in http://www.crin.org/docs/PPT%20BEIP%20Group.pdf. 22 A van Ijzendoom, H. Marinus, Maartje Luijk and Femmie Juffer, “IQ of children growing up in children’s homes” Merrill Palmer Quarterly 54, No. 3(2008). 14 that children gain through family life. Often, the ties of many institutionalized children to their parents and relatives are weakened or severed. In 2009, approximately three-quarters of the children in Cambodian orphanages are reported to have one or both parents living, and a substantially higher proportion have living relatives. Some children in care are able to retain family connections, but others are not. To the extent that family and community relationships are cut by placement in residential care, potential connections needed for long-term social and economic reintegration as adults are lost. For most young people, actually becoming economically active involves help from and connections facilitated by family members and community connections. Access to land, for example, typically comes through inheritance, which institutionalized children may risk losing. Also, finding a job is often a matter of who you know and who, in turn, they can connect you with. Young people who leave orphanages and who lack family and community connections are at a disadvantage in finding ways to earn income. Those who grow up in an orphanage also face significant issues in terms of social isolation. One young care leaver in Kenya poignantly summed up his social isolation when he said to an interviewer: I spent over 10 years in the institution they didn’t take me to college and am now being assisted by anyone which I feel bad about it and I feel lost and uncertain of life, because am an adult now, sometimes in my small room, I think nobody cares, if I fell sick I wouldn’t have anyone around to take me to the hospital, and if I died I don’t know who would come to my funeral.23 Re-establishing an Electronic Database on Orphanages From 2007 to 2010, MoSVY had an electronic database, managed by the Child Welfare Department, for recording and processing data from reports on orphanage inspections. With the introduction of the much more extensive assessment forms in 2011, it has been necessary for MoSVY’s Child Welfare Department to tabulate manually the information completed on hand￾written orphanage inspection forms. MoSVY anticipates shifting from the current manual tabulation of information to an automated system. There would certainly be advantages to having an electronic system for completing the lengthy assessment reports and transferring the data to the Child Welfare Department. However, given the amount of information being recorded for each institution and each child, it seems almost certain that it would not be feasible in the near term to establish, maintain, and operate over time a completely electronic system. DCOF has had the experience in several countries of elaborate electronic database systems breaking down as a result of the challenges of entering excessive amounts of data and the ongoing requirements of securing and maintaining the hardware and software to process it. It will be important to ensure that the database system developed by MoSVY is manageable over time. It will be important to find a reasonable combination of manual data recording and selective entry of information into a new electronic system. 23 Stephen Ucembe, “From Institutional Care to Family Based Care,” (Feed the Children, PowerPoint presentation): 2011. 15 Understanding the Business Models of Orphanages in Cambodia As reflected in Cambodian policy and in the evidence referenced above, residential care for children has serious shortcomings regarding its outcomes for children. It is worth reflecting on the question of why residential care in Cambodia has become so widespread if is less effective in meeting children’s needs. The answer seems to lie at least in part in the fact that orphanages have developed an effective business model. Substantial amounts of money flow from abroad and visiting tourists to support these facilities; undoubtedly, most of this money comes from individuals, faith communities, and organizations that genuinely want to help children. It may be that better understanding these resource flows could lead to strategies for redirecting at least some of this money to supporting family-based care for children. The excellent study supported through the USAID/DCOF-funded project, With the Best of Intentions: A Study of Attitudes towards Residential Care in Cambodia, provides some perspectives on sources of funding for residential care, the roles of volunteers, and orphanage fundraising strategies. It is worth consideration by MoSVY and UNICEF (1) whether it may be possible to develop strategies and potential points of intervention to help redirect funding streams to support family-based care with better outcomes and through which more children can be supported and, if so, (2) whether additional information on orphanage business models and funding streams are needed to develop such strategies. Social Work Training A limited amount of USAID/DCOF funding has been used to support the bachelor’s level social work training program at the Royal University of Phnom Penh, which began in 2008. It is significant to note that the first class of 24 bachelor’s level social workers will graduate from the program this year. One of the students has been doing his field work placement with UNICEF. The number of first-year students entering this program has increased significantly. In both 2008 and 2009, 22 students entered, but in 2010, the number increased to 65.24 Lack of Central Government Funding Commitment to Child Protection and Welfare A concern from the perspective of USAID/DCOF and other potential donors is the absence of any commitment of funds from the central government for the implementation of MoSVY’s child protection and welfare responsibilities. The Prakas on Alternative Care, for example, specifies functions of MoSVY, DoSVY, and OSVY, but the central government provides only for staff salaries, office expenses, and travel. The Government does not provide any funds toward their operational responsibilities. For these, this line ministry is entirely dependent upon donor funding. When meeting with the team, the Director General of Technical Affairs of MoSVY stressed the importance of implementing the Prakas on Alternative Care, but said that the Ministry would need $700,000 in donor funds to be able to implement it nationally. This leaves in question the potential sustainability of those aspects of the formal child protection system that USAID/DCOF has supported. At a subsequent meeting, the Secretary of State for MoSVY, said that the MoSVY is not waiting for donor funds to move forward in implementing the policy and 24 MoSVY, Mapping and Assessment of Child Protection System in Cambodia (April 2011): 35. 16 prakas established. He said that one approach the Ministry is using to address its resource constraints is to encourage NGO support for and coordination with its plans. Observations on Commune-Level Capacities and Activities Prior to the USAID/DCOF-funded project, UNICEF and other organizations worked with the Ministry of the Interior to establish commune committees for women and children (CCWCs), as an advisory sub-committee to commune councils. In 2007, the National Committee for the Management of Decentralization and De-Concentration established CCWC in 1,621 communes throughout the country. Government social work services only extend to the provincial (DoSVY) and district (OSVY) levels. CCWC’s are seen as extending some governmental capacity to identify and address child protection and other social issues at commune and village levels. Commune councils have budgets allocated through governmental structures, but these funds are typically used for infrastructure, road rehabilitation in particular. Beginning in 2009, UNICEF made available to 27 communes a “social envelope” of $1,000 that these communes could use for child protection and well-being interventions. It was specified that up to 30 percent can be used for assessment and mapping and at least 70 percent must be spent on interventions to address needs and problems identified. Beyond meeting some immediate needs in the 27 communes, the broader aim was to demonstrate how CCWC’s and commune councils can identify particularly vulnerable households and children and to respond appropriately. In 2011, instead of a direct transfer, UNICEF channelled these funds through the government’s internal system of moving funds to commune level. Regrettably, there was some delay, and they were not received at the commune level until November 2011, leaving too little time for them to be used during that calendar year. The 2011 allocations have been carried over to 2012, and commune councils are expected to use those funds during the current year. Linked to this process, in 2009 and 2010, UNICEF piloted a specific process for identifying the most vulnerable children in a village. UNICEF trained 20 of the 27 CCWC’s to carry out a social services mapping exercise through which each CCWC develops a large map of each village in the commune, specifying each house as well as notable infrastructure and resources. Then they indicate on the map households with any of the following characteristics: 1. Orphans and vulnerable children under 18 2. Paternal orphans 3. Maternal orphans 4. Double orphans 5. Children with chronically ill parents or caregivers 6. Street children 7. Children living in identified poor households 8. Children who are victims of trafficking 9. Children who are victims of sexual abuse 10. Children involved in hazardous (worst) forms of labour 11. Disabled children 12. Children with elderly care givers 13. Children living with extended family members 17 Social services mapping has been done for 117 villages in the 20 communes. UNICEF organized an evaluation of this approach together with members of relevant government offices.25 The DCOF member of the assessment team visited Angkor Tret Commune on May 24, 2012 and met with members of its CCWC and with members of two households that had benefited from assistance that it had provided. This visit raised some questions about the potential for replicating widely the village social mapping process. It was evident from their description that the process of developing the maps and inserting, as appropriate, the 13 indicators was very labor-intensive. The Angkor Tret CCWC had taken action with the $1,000 provided from UNICEF, but members said that they had not used the maps further since 2010, because of a delay in receiving funding from UNICEF in 2011. When asked what their recommendation would be to other communes about the mapping exercise, the response from the CCWC was that other communes would need to receive funding if they are to do this kind of activity. This one visit was by no means adequate to provide a basis for judging the social services mapping process as a development tool in Cambodia. The resulting impression, however, was that while appropriate use had been made of the funds provided for mapping and response to vulnerable children, participation in this process did not convince members of the CCWC that the commune should use its own resources to continue this activity. UNICEF recognizes that producing the initial maps does require a lot of work, but notes that updating the maps is more straightforward. The initial mapping process allows community participation, bringing communities and local government together to start talking about social issues, and is a way for communities to hold the commune councils accountable for their actions. It also builds the capacity and understanding of both commune councils and communities regarding the importance of identifying vulnerable households and investing in social services. The aim of the process is to convince commune councils to invest their own funds for social support in the future. In addition to building capacity and knowledge of social issues and providing a means of identifying vulnerable children and families, UNICEF hopes that the social services mapping process will help convince commune councils to invest their own funds for social support in the future, which several UNICEF-supported communes have done. When we met with CCWC members from Angkor Tret commune, they expressed very strongly that this method enables them to identify vulnerable households and come up with interventions themselves, in contrast to NGO initiatives where the decisions are made by outsiders. The aim is to empower local government, build capacity for the long-term, and strengthen community networks. While recognizing the intentions behind this approach, DCOF questions whether it is likely to lead to sustained commitments by commune councils of their own resources or a sense of ownership. The approach being used is effectively a partnership through which local actors use external resources to address local needs (category 2 in the typology of community 25 UNICEF Cambodia, A Report on the Internal Assessment of the Social Service Mapping Tool (April 2011). 18 engagement).26 Both practitioner experience and a systematic review of community engagement for child protection suggest that this type of community involvement in an externally-supported initiative does not lead to ownership and sustainability after external funding ends.27 There are approaches to community risk mapping that are highly participatory and less costly and labor￾intensive. UNICEF might try working with a few commune councils using such approaches and assess the results.28 DCOF has observed good results with children identifying primary risks in their communities, as well as participatory methods (such as Participatory Learning and Action tools) used with adults. A promising prospect going forward is that the 3PC Project aims to link with the CCWC. Coordinated action by NGOs and CCWCs has the prospect of generating constructive action for vulnerable children. The Role of the Child Protection Section at UNICEF Headquarters UNICEF headquarters support for strengthening of the child protection system in Cambodia has focused mainly on supporting the systems mapping exercise – Cambodia was one of the first countries for the mapping tool29 developed by Maestral to be tested. For this intensive support and coordination was needed between headquarters, the consultants who developed the tool, and the Cambodia Country Office. Also, in November 2012, the Child Protection Section at UNICEF headquarters is planning a Global Systems Conference in India, which will include the participation of a representative from Cambodia. Beyond this, the headquarters role has mainly concerned supporting the reporting process for the DCOF-funded project. This has involved requesting bi-annual reports, helping to edit them as necessary, and play an intermediary role with UNICEF Cambodia regarding any questions that DCOF has concerning the contents of these reports. In addition 26 Nicole Benham Agencies, Communities, and Children: A Report of the Interagency Learning Initiative: Engaging Communities for Children’s Well-Being (August 18, 2008): 12-19. http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/the_funds/pubs/dcili_08.pdf. 27 Mike Wessells, Ibid and What Are We Learning about Protecting Children in the Community? An Inter-agency Review of Evidence on Community-Based Child Protection Mechanisms (Save the Children UK on behalf of the Inter-Agency Reference Group, Full report, 2009): 18, 33-35, 49-52. http://www.unicef.org/wcaro/What_We_Are_Learning_About_Protecting_Children_in_the_Community_Full_R eport.pdf. 28 See, for example: Uganda: http://www.worlded.org/docs/Publications/training/integrated_care_for_ovc_toolkit.pdf (pp.19-30) Thailand: http://seap.savethechildren.se/Global/scs/SEAP/publication/publication%20pdf/Disaster/DRR%20LL%20lessons %20learned%20report.pdf Burkina Faso: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDABW552.pdf (p. 34) http://www.unescap.org/esd/Energy-Security-and-Water￾Resources/water/projects/pdr_sea/documents/Presentations/DAY%201/16_HCVA%20Tools%20for%20Child￾led%20CBDRR.pdf http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/trainings-events/edu-materials/v.php?id=3820 Transformational development: http://www.transformational￾development.org/ministry/transdev2.nsf/IdentificationoftheMostVulnerableChildren.pdf DCOF can provide on request a copy of Child- and Youth-Friendly Participatory Action Research Toolkit (ChildFund, 2010). 29 http://www.unicef.org/search/search.php?querystring_en=+Maestral+&go.x=9&go.y=10 19 headquarters staff have also played an intermediary role between DCOF and UNICEF Cambodia in relation to other enquiries and requests, including for the current assessment. SUMMARY COMMENTS The work that UNICEF has done with DCOF support over the last four years appears to be moving the country’s approach appropriately toward an emphasis on strengthening family-based care. Cambodia has proven to be a challenging environment for UNICEF and DCOF because the pace of change is slow compared to work that it has supported elsewhere. After three years, progress has been made in formal child protection mechanisms, notably the alternative care prakas, and in training MoSVY and to some extent civil society personnel in implementing child protection measures that support family care. The recent, most significant concrete change, the closing of 70 orphanages and the reintegration into families of most of the children, is very encouraging, but it needs to be verified and assessed. USAID/DCOF funds have been the principal financial resource to enable UNICEF Cambodia to support reform and strengthening of the national child protection system. Change has been initiated, but the process is far from complete and the results measured in terms of improved lives of children are not yet anywhere near adequate. Without the USAID/DCOF investment, though, things could be significantly worse. It seems likely that MoSVY would not have its current commitment to shifting the country toward an emphasis on family care for children through preventing unnecessary separation and emphasizing family-based alternative care. If resources can be made available, some level of future DCOF funding in Cambodia would be appropriate to help make the evolving system more operationally effective and quicker in its action to support adequate family care for children. However, any future funding decisions by DCOF will depend not only on the availability of funds, but also consideration of other opportunities for the use of those funds. The prospect of future DCOF funding in Cambodia would likely be enhanced by the prospect that activities supported would lead in the near term to substantive improvements in measurable indicators of family care as a result of systemic changes in the country. The work of Friends International, Mith Samlanh and Kaliyan Mith is very impressive and creative. The aim of building governmental capacities and government-civil society networks is unusual and promising. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. UNICEF should support MoSVY, the DosVY and OSVY offices concerned, and, as possible 3PC partner NGOs, to support and monitor the adequacy of the reported deinstitutionalization or alternative placement of children from the 70 Four Square orphanages. 20 2. UNICEF should encourage and support MoSVY to seek the establishment of its authority at the district or provincial level to make best interests determinations for children and the authority to implement these regarding family reunification and alternative care of children. Such decisions should be in keeping with national policies and the Prakas on Alternative Care. 3. UNICEF should encourage MoSVY to give much more attention to the urgent need to ensure family care for young children, particularly those less than three years of age who are in residential institutions. 4. MoSVY and UNICEF should consider translating into Khmer selected documents or relevant excerpts of documents that present evidence of the impacts on children of residential care. The documents provided by the assessment team to MoSVY and UNICEF should be among those considered. 5. Before it becomes the standard for country-wide implementation, UNICEF and MoSVY should review the case management process being developed by SKY in terms of the skills it requires and, consequently, the feasibility of its being implemented in the near term by DoSVY and OSVY personnel throughout the country. It might be necessary, at least on an interim basis, to implement a system that is in some ways less technically demanding. 6. UNICEF should encourage MoSVY to establish a system for processing orphanage assessment information that combines in a realistic way manual collection of data and the incorporation of a limited and manageable amount of key information into an electronic database. 7. In the event that UNICEF submits a proposal for future USAID/DCOF funding, it should reflect attention, as appropriate, to the preceding recommendations and the observations in this report. It would also be expected that there be written plans or agreements with MoSVY and any other ministries directly involved with implementation of the proposed activities that would address the activities and anticipated results. 21 APPENDIX 1: SCOPE OF WORK FOR DCOF-UNICEF ASSESSMENT VISIT TO CAMBODIA Background The Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF) of the U.S. Agency for International Development has provided, through the Child Protection Section at UNICEF headquarters, $1,168,440 to support the strengthening of systems to protect children and families in Cambodia for the period May 13, 2009 – May 29, 2012. The objectives established for this project were: 1. To assess in how far government structures are adequate to support a child protection system, and whether policy, budget and legislative framework meet standards set by international conventions and support the growth of family-centred service delivery. 2. The level of skills and understanding of Government officials at all levels and NGO partners have the necessary understanding and skills to be able to implement the laws, regulations and procedures related to child and family welfare. 3. Basic child and family welfare services that ensure the right of children to live in a safe and secure family environment are modelled in four provinces and a programme for mainstreaming these services is developed. In the three years of the project, a number of milestones were achieved according to the Country Office’s regular reports, including, among others: - The adoption of the Prakas on the Procedures to Implement the Policy on Alternative Care occurred in October 2011. The decree includes different modalities of provision of support and alternative care options for children deprived of parental care, including provisions related to child guardianship, case management (with focus on family reunification) and removal from alternative care services in cases of violence, abuse and neglect and the permanency replacement30. 2,700 copies of the Prakas were successfully distributed to all stakeholders at the national and sub-national levels. - Following this, important changes were introduced to the institutional care inspection form to better align with the Minimum Standards of Alternative Care of Children of the inspection the residential care. In September 2011, 200 provincial inspection focal points were trained to use new inspection forms and scoring system and 248 residential care institutions operated by NGOs were inspected by MOSVY staff. - The final report of the mapping of MoSVY’s functions was finalized and disseminated in a consultative workshop with the participation of 150 representatives from government institutions, development partners, UN agencies and civil society organizations. This mapping provides a snapshot of MoSVY functions as performed by the central ministry, departments and provincial and district line units, identifies gaps and recommends options for function reassignment. The mapping will be presented as key evidence to the National Committee for the Management of Decentralization and De-Concentration Reform and to development partners in order to highlight lessons learned from the mapping process. - The gap analysis of the existing national policy and legislative framework for child protection in Cambodia was finalized and the findings were presented in a consultative workshop organized by the Cambodian National Council for Children (CNCC) with support 30 Permanency planning is planning of stable care arrangement, expected to continue until the child reaches adulthood. The ultimate goal of permanency planning is to ensure secure environment with lifelong bonds that will support the child into adulthood (Better Care Network). 22 from UNICEF in November 2011. The CNCC is working with the government to ensure that the recommendations will be translated into legislative reform. - The National Multi-Sectoral Task Force for Orphans and Vulnerable Children (NOVCTF) expanded its coverage from two to five priority provinces − Kampong Speu, Prey Veng, Siem Reap, Kampong Cham and Kampong Thom − as identified in the OVC National Plan of Action (2008−2010). - A total of 27 commune councils in seven provinces and the capital (Battambang, Kampong Speu, Otdar Meanchey, Phnom Penh, Prey Veng, Siem Reap, Stung Treng, and Svay Rieng) were supported to ensure the needs of women and children would be considered in the sub￾national planning process and to implement child protection interventions. The support included social services mapping, identification of vulnerable children and families and the inclusion of support actions in the commune investment plans. - The Buddhist Leadership Initiative implemented by the Ministry of Cults and Religion (MoCR), through 12 Provincial Departments of Cult and Religion (PDCRs) and NGOs has made important progress in introducing essential care and welfare support for 2,878 orphans and vulnerable children and their families. - Across 20 communes in six UNICEF target provinces, 117 villages conducted social service mapping and identified vulnerable children and their families with limited access to services. Communes targeted these families with services funded through a US$1,000 Social Services Envelope made possible through USAID funds. Purpose and Timing of Visit During the period May 15-25, John Williamson, Senior Technical Advisor for USAID/DCOF and Peter Gross31, Child Protection Specialist (Alternative Care) of UNICEF headquarters will visit Cambodia, to assess the achievements of the project in relation to the above objectives and discuss future options. This work will be carried out with the support of the UNICEF Country Office and USAID Cambodia. Expected Results The following result is expected:  Assessment report of activities carried out under the DCOF grant to UNICEF Cambodia country office, including proposals for next steps. Activities It is anticipated that the assessment process, with attention to policy and practice issues, will include:  Review of documents relevant to the implementation of the project  An initial meeting with relevant personnel in USAID Cambodia to discuss plans for the visit to Cambodia and the assessment process;  A series of meetings with relevant personnel in UNICEF Cambodia for briefings on and discussions of the project’s activities, results, and challenges, as well as the implications of the report by Child Frontiers and lessons learned during the course of the project for future work in Cambodia to strengthen the child protection system; 31 Peter Gross will participate from 15 to 18 May 2012. 23  Meetings at national and sub-national levels with relevant personnel of the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY) and such other governmental and nongovernmental bodies as may be appropriate to discuss relevant aspects of project activities, results, and challenges;  Visits to at least two communes (of seven) where commune councils have been used to support planning and action to address the needs of children and women,  Any additional site visits and meetings as may be appropriate to provide an overview of those aspects of the Buddhist Leadership Initiative supported with DCOF funds;  A review of the roles that the Child Protection Section at UNICEF headquarters has played in relation to the DCOF-funded systems strengthening activities in Cambodia; and  Discussions regarding future funding possibilities, with respect to roles and responsibilities (including reporting suggestions, role of UNICEF HQ, evaluation and measurement options, and timing.) In addition to the meetings and travel necessary for understanding project related activities, additional meetings (as possible) will be arranged to explore:  The reasons behind the growth in the number of residential care institutions in Cambodia32 and what is being done in response,  The relationship of international adoption to alternative care in Cambodia, and  The implications of the Government’s social protection strategy for child protection. Prior to departure from Cambodia, John Williamson will debrief with USAID Cambodia on the major observations of the assessment visit and discuss the Mission’s views regarding the possibility of the provision of additional DCOF funding for work in Cambodia. Within three weeks of departure from Cambodia, John Williamson, in consultation with Peter Gross, will prepare a draft assessment report. 32 The UNICEF report on the project read that, “In the last five years, there has been a steady increase in the number of institutions, very few of which are state-run. In 2010, the number of residential care facilities rose to 269, with 11,945 child residents. This represents a 91 per cent increase since 2005 (6,253 child residents). This sharp increase is particularly worrisome given that 2009 government statistics show that only 23 per cent of children in residential care have no living parent.” 24 APPENDIX 2: SCHEDULE FOR DCOF VISIT Final Time Programme Responsible person Notes Tuesday 8 May 12:45 Arrival at Siem Reap airport on Bangkok Air flight PG 905 Airport pick up by UNICEF Wednesday 9 to Sunday 13 May Personal travel time Hotel for Sunday 13 May: Bougainvilllier Hotel (Peter) and Sunway Hotel (John) Monday 14 May (King’s birthday and official holiday in Cambodia) Am /pm No meetings ‐ public holiday in Cambodia Review of information package from UNICEF containing studies, reports and other documents related to the implementation of the DCOF funds    Tuesday  15 May 09:15 Pick up from hotel Transport by UNICEF (John only) 09:30 Meet with child protection team: ‐ Introduction and welcome ‐ Review of the agenda for the visit ‐ Overview of child protection programme ‐ Sharing of documents Led by Souad Al‐Hebshi, Chief of Child Protection UNICEF Child Protection team UNICEF child protection meeting room 12:00 Lunch    13:30 Welcome and introduction to the UNICEF Cambodia Country Programme Introduction to the country context, social protection and child budgeting Ms. Sun ah Kim, Representative OiC, UNICEF Cambodia Usha Mishra, Chief of Policy, Advocacy and Communication UNICEF main conference room 14:30 Presentations and discussion on the different components of UNICEF Cambodia’s child protection programme: ‐ Social welfare ‐ Justice for children ‐ Community mechanisms Led by Souad Al‐Hebshi, Chief of Child Protection UNICEF Child Protection team UNICEF main conference room 25 ‐ Partnerships 16:00 Presentation and discussion on the local governance for child rights programme, including UNICEF’s engagement with the deconcentration and decentralisation process Judith Leveillee, Chief of Local Governance for Child Rights UNICEF main conference room Wednesday 16 May 07:30 Pick up from hotel Transport by UNICEF 08:00 Meeting with the Inter‐country Adoption Administration ‐ H.E. Nim Toth, Secretary of State of MoSVY; H.E. Chan Haran Vaddey, Under Secretary of State of MoSVY; Mr. Touch Sok Muth, Deputy Chief of Inter‐Country Adoption Administration Rut Feuk, Chhaya Plong MoSVY office 09:30 Meeting with Child Welfare Department ‐ Mr Oum Sophanara, Director of Child Welfare Department; H.E. Prak Chanteourn, Director General of the Directorate of Technical Affairs; and Mr Lo Leang, national consultant, to discuss the implementation of the Alternative Care Policy Rut Feuk and Chhaya Plong, Child Protection Specialists MoSVY office 11:00 Meet with the Cambodia National Council for Children (CNCC) ‐ H.E. Khiev Borey, General Secretary of CNCC  and Ms. Bou Sophoan, Planning Officer at CNCC Jane Kim and Sereyvathana So, Justice for Children team CNCC office 12:00 Lunch at Khmer Surin restaurant    Thursday 17 May 08:00 Pick up from hotel Transport by UNICEF 08:30 Meeting with Child Welfare Department (Mr Om Sophanara, H.E. Prak Chanteourn and Mr Lo Leang) to discuss the implementation of the Alternative Care Policy Rut Feuk and Chhaya Plong, Child Protection Specialists MoSVY office 10:30 Meeting with members of the National Orphans and Vulnerable Children Taskforce (NOVCTF) ‐ H.E. Keo Burentr, Chair of the National Multi‐Sectoral Orphans and Vulnerable Children Task Force; Mr. Khlang Pichet, NOVC TF Secretary; Mr. Chey Chan, Technical Advisor of NOCV TF, Save Children; Ms. Khim Sinalin, Technical Advisor of Capacity Building of Institutions and Amin and Finance, Save the Children Rut Feuk, Chhaya Plong MoSVY office 12:00 Meeting with H.E. Nim Toth, State Secretary responsible for child welfare and inter‐country Rut Feuk and Chhaya Plong, Child Protection Specialists MoSVY office 26 adoption (ICA) 12:40 Lunch at Chinese restaurant on Monivong    13:30 High level meeting with MoSVY, the Hague, UNICEF and embassies on ICA Sun Ah Kim, Souad Al‐ Hebshi, Rut Feuk, Chhaya Plong MoSVY office Friday 18 May 08:00 Pick up from hotel Transport by UNICEF 08:30 Presentation and discussion on the deconcentration and decentralisation process Pamela Jawad, Advisor GiZ GIZ/ARDP office, St. 278 No. 164A (corner of St. 63) 09.30 Travel to Friends International    10:00 Briefing with Friends International (FI) on the NGO partnership and the work of FI/Mith Samlanh: ‐ Visit Mith Samlanh’s centre, which offers food, shelter, medical care, training and educational facilities for vulnerable or abandoned children. ‐ Foster care and kinship care programme. ‐ Discuss the growth in orphanages in Cambodia and an overview of FI’s campaign against orphanage tourism. Ulrike Gilbert, HIV Specialist Ruth Feuk, Child Protection Specialist Friends International centre Met with Sebastien Marot, Executive Director and Ms. Map Somaya (Didi), Director of Mith Samlanh 12:00 Lunch at Friends International restaurant    13:30 Meeting with Monique Mosolf, Director, Office of Public Health and Education USAID/Phnom Penh Accompanied by Souad Al‐ Hebshi and Rut Feuk USAID office Saturday 19 May Time off in Phnom Penh    Sunday 20 May 12:30 Departure to Siem Reap Carly Witheridge, Child Protection Specialist Hotel: Royal Bay Angkor Inn (booked) Monday 21 May 08:00 Pick up from hotel UNICEF vehicles 08:15 Meeting with the Provincial Office of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (PoSVY) and the SKY team on reunification of children from an NGO orphanage Cambodian Light Children Association in Siem Reap (CLCAS) to their families, including progress and challenges. Carly Witheridge, Child Protection Specialist Chivith Rottanak, Child Protection Officer, Siem Reap zone Venue: UNICEF office Ms. Susan Rosas, SKY; Mr. Nab Han, PoSVY Director; Ms. Chheng Vanna, PoSVY Deputy 27 09:45 Travel to former orphanage (CLCAS) in Siem Reap Amalee Mccoy, Child Protection Specialist, Regional Office Director 10:00 Visit the former NGO orphanage from which children were relocated due to the flood in 2011. Mondol 3 village, Sangkat Slor Kram, Siem Reap town 10:15 Travel to Provincial orphanage (state‐run) 10:30 Visit the Provincial orphanage in Teuk Vil village to see the case file management and the system that has been set up. Discussion with SKY on the technical support provided to MoSVY to strengthen case‐ management and permanency planning for children in institutional care. Venue: provincial State orphanage Mr Sok Khun, Orphanage Director 11:30 Travel to restaurant 12:00 Lunch in Siem Reap town 14:00 Meeting with the Anti‐Human Trafficking and Juvenile Protection (AHTJP) and Crime Unit on the police role in response to child abuse and neglect, emergency removals, abandoned children, etc. Provincial Police Headquarter Ms. Duong Thavry, Chief of AHTJP and Mr. Duong Sokha, Chief of Crime Unit 15:15 Travel to UNICEF zone office 15:30 Meet with UNICEF Siem Reap Zone Office Chief, Path Heang and Sovadhanak Hun, LGCR Officer UNICEF zone office 17:00 Travel back to hotel Hotel: Royal Bay Angkor Inn (booked) Tuesday  22 May 08:10 Pick up from hotel and travel to Kaliyan Mith UNICEF vehicles 08:30 Visit Kaliyan Mith to discuss their partnership with UNICEF to strengthen child protection   systems in Siem Reap, including: ‐ Identifying and protecting children at risk ‐ Provision of education and vocational training to children and youth ‐ Provision of temporary shelter for children without safe parental care ‐ Reintegration of children into their families ‐ Implementation of a formal diversion system in collaboration with police ‐ Reintegration of children from prison, Carly Witheridge, Child Protection Specialist Chivith Rottanak, Child Protection Officer, Siem Reap zone Amalee Mccoy, Child Protection Specialist, Regional Office Kaliyan Mith Office, Treang village, Sangkat Slor Kram, Siem Reap city Met with Ms. Ampor Sam‐Oeun, Kaliyan Mith Provincial Director and Mr Uch You Chheng, Assistant to the Director 28 together with the prison authority and DoSVY There will also be an opportunity to visit the activities taking place in the centre, including non‐formal education, vocational training and home‐based production training. 10:30 Travel to participants involved in the home‐ based production programme 10:45 Visit individual families involved in Kaliyan Mith’s home‐based production activities to help prevent separation of children from their families, and discuss their experiences. Siem Reap town 11:45 Travel back to Siem Reap 12:00 Lunch in Siem Reap town 13:30 Travel to Anlong Pi 14:00 Visit Siem Reap’s rubbish dump and Kaliyan Mith’s day care centre located near to the rubbish dump Anlong Pi village, Svay Thom commune, Prasat Bakong district, Siem Reap 15:00 Travel to Kampong Thom 17:00 Arrive at hotel Hotel: Kampong Thom Village Hotel (booked) Wednesday 23 May 07:45 Pick up from hotel UNICEF vehicles 08:00 Meet with the Provincial Orphans and Vulnerable Children Task Force (POVCTF), the Provincial Governor and provincial social welfare staff in Kampong Thom - Presentation and briefing about POVCTF activities, achievements, challenges and action plan Questions and answers Carly Witheridge, Child Protection Specialist Chivith Rottanak, Child Protection Officer, Siem Reap zone Amalee Mccoy, Child Protection Specialist, Regional Office Lo Leang, National Consultant Venue: Governor Office in Kampong Thom Ms. Svay Neang, PoSVY Deputy Director and POVCTF Coordinator 09:30 Travel to Achar Leak Sangkat 09:45 Meet with the CCWC (Commune Clerk and Focal Point for Women and Children) in Achar Leak commune to discuss the process and outcomes of the Prakas testing: piloting the implementation of the alternative care procedures Sangkat Achar Leak, Stung Sen municipality Mr. Ang Hokpheng, Commune Chief; Ms. Le Voleap, Focal Point for Women and Children; Ms. Chav Kav, Commune Clerk 10:45 Travel to nearby village 11:00 Home visit to a family identified during the Prakas testing, who subsequently received 29 support through the CCWC 11:45 Travel back to Kampong Thom town 12:00 Lunch at Arunreas restarurant 14:00 Meet with the Provincial Department of Cult and Religion for briefing and discussion about the Buddhist Leadership Initiative Venue: PDCR office Mr. Hoeun Yinthy, BLI Coordinator; Path Kimsun, Monk 15:00 Travel to Santuk district 15:30 Visit families supported by BLI interventions 16:30 Travel back to Kampong Thom Hotel: Kampong Thom Village Hotel (booked) Thursday 24 May 07:30 Pick up from hotel Carly Witheridge, Child Protection Specialist Chivith Rottanak, Child Protection Officer, Siem Reap zone Amalee Mccoy, Child Protection Specialist, Regional Office 08:00 Visit a session of the Buddhist Leadership Initiative for orphans and vulnerable children in Chey Mongkol Pagoda, Santuk district and discuss with monks their experience of family preservation through BLI support and their involvement in the Prakas testing Chroab commune, Santuk district Mr. Hoeun Yinthy, BLI Coordinator; Venerable Thom Bunthy, Head Monk at Panha Chi Pagoda 09:30 Travel to Prey Veng province 12:00 Lunch 14:00 Visit Angkor Tret Commune Committee for Women and Children (CCWC) receiving the social envelop and where UNICEF supported the integration of child protection in the commune investment plan. Learn about how Social Service Mapping has been conducted at the village level. Mr. Put Lon, School Director; Mr. So Eng, Commune Clerk; Ms. Cheng Hun, Village Assistant; Ms. So Nhor, former Focal Point for Women and Children 15:00 Visit families identified through the mapping who have received support by the Commune Council through the social funds, with a focus on family preservation. 16:30 Travel to Phnom Penh Sunway Hotel (booked) Friday 25 May Am/pm Closing meetings with USAID and UNICEF In Phnom Penh 17:30 Leave for airport UNICEF vehicle 20:25 Flight to Bangkok on Thai Airways TG 585    Contact details 30 UNICEF Cambodia   No. 11, Street 75, Sangkat Sraschark P.O. Box 176, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Telephone: (855) 23 426 214/5 (Ext: 228) Web: www.unicef.org Ms. Souad al‐Hebshi Chief of Child Protection +855 (0)12 530037 salhebshi@unicef.org Mr. Chivith Rottanak Child Protection Officer, Siem Riep Zone 012 723 478 crottanak@unicef.org Ms. Carly Witheridge Child Protection Specialist 0978 573 002 cwitheridge@unicef.org 31 APPENDIX 3: LOG FRAME: STRENGTHENING SYSTEMS TO PROTECT VULNERABLE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Objectively verifiable indicators Sources of verification Assumptions and Risks Progress by May 2012 Overall Objective The Royal Government of Cambodia has a child and family welfare system which provides a supportive and protective environment for children and families from the community through to the national level, including the development and enforcement of a supportive legislative framework Structural changes at sub-national government level to enable the development of family and community based services Budget allocations to support new services Reports of Commune, District and Provincial Councils Legislation, regulations and guidelines which support the structural changes. Field observation Government has the political will to initiate reform in the child welfare social policy sphere The impact of the global financial crisis on vulnerable groups in Cambodia is mitigated by government and donor strategies Output 1 1. Government structure, policy and legislative framework meets standards set by international conventions and supports the growth of family centred service delivery. Structures, policies and laws are in place that meet international standards Laws, regulations and operational guidelines. Strategic plans Project documentation Decentralization and de-concentration process moves forward within proposed timescales. Overall legal and judicial reform process gives due consideration of child and family welfare. MoSVY continues to support new initiatives to strengthen child and family welfare sector. In progress 32 Output 2 2. Government officials at all levels and NGO partners have the necessary understanding and skills to be able implement the laws, regulations and procedures around child and family welfare Government officials and NGO partners are oriented to child welfare laws and regulations Cases referred in 24 communes are appropriately handled by commune officials. Workshop and meeting agendas, invitations and reports Feedback questionnaires from trainings and orientations Commune reports, case files and interviews with officials and beneficiaries Commitment to alternative care which prioritizes care which is family based, permanent and national is understood and articulated by Government at all levels Government commits human resources at provincial and district levels In progress with some delay, which constraint by the limited human resources at the provincial and district levels Output 3 3. Basic child and family welfare services which assure the right of children to live in a safe and secure family environment are modelled in 4 provinces and a plan for mainstreaming developed. Family support services are provided by Commune Councils MoSVY and MOI incorporate new services into their strategic planning processes. Commune Council Records, meeting minutes, observation and interviews MoSVY and MOI strategic plans Case records of children receiving services Motivation and enthusiasm of individual sub-national government authorities can be maintained without payment of additional salary supplementation. Availability of personnel with appropriate competencies including literacy skills, particularly at commune level. In progress with some delay (see progress on activities detailed under 3.1 to 3.7) Results (Activities) 1 1.1 Existing policy and legislative framework for child protection is analysed, and draft comprehensive child protection legislation is developed Draft Child Protection Law which meets international standards developed by 2012 Commitment of MoSVY and CNCC to develop and finalize draft laws and regulations Consultative Workshop convened, and Simplified Compendium of Child-Related Laws underway (Find the table of contents attached) Status: The consultant has been recruited and work is underway and Compendium to be produced in August 2012 Legislative Reform Forum (Child Protection Code) slated 33 for November 2012. The expected outcomes of the forum: concrete action plan/timeline for development of Child Protection Code 1.2 MoSVY finalises its Prakas on the Functioning of the Child Welfare System and accompanying operational guidelines Regulations and operational guidelines for services in place by 2012 Provincial, District and Commune Councils have a mandate for child and family welfare Regulations and operational guidelines ToR and regulations for Commune, Provincial and District Councils AC Prakas adopted in 2011 Draft operational guidelines of AC Policy finalized. - Currently being updated to reflect streamlined processes as well as adoption of Prakas in 2011. 1.3 National coordination and strategic planning of the Buddhist Leadership Initiative and the National OVC Task Force are strengthened Buddhist Leadership Initiative strategic plan in place National Orphans and Vulnerable Children Task Force strategic plan in place BLI Strategic Plan NOVCTF Strategic Plan BLI plans developed with 10 provinces BLI annual review conducted and agreed to evaluate the initiative in 2012 to determine future course OVC Plan 2008 – 2010. Evaluation in 2012 and development of new plan to be synchronized with MoSVY work platform 1.4 Child and family welfare functions are reviewed in the context of the Organic Law Preliminary phase of functional review of MoSVY completed Functional Review Mapping Report Preliminary Functional mapping report finalized. Review starts in 2012 in accordance with policies of NCDD and informed the development of the national guideline for reviewing mapping manual. Comprehensive mapping and review will be finalised by 2013 1.5 MoSVY develops a national plan for the promotion of National plan to promote adoption and guardianship Draft National Plan on Domestic Adoption UNICEF successfully advocated for the addition of provisions on guardianship into 34 guardianship and adoption developed the Prakas Procedures.. It was decided that the development of a national plan to promote guardianship and domestic adoption will commence after Prakas adoption. This is pending for 2012. Consultant in MoSVY will support this process. Nationwide judiciary workshop for Presidents of Courts and Chief Prosecutors in August 2012 to ensure consistent implementation of the Civil Code (2008) vis-à-vis emergency removal, protection orders, custody and parental holder issues, guardianship, domestic adoption and intercountry adoption (PNH court) Results (Activities) 2 2.1 A nationwide orientation on child welfare is provided to Government and NGO workers 1 national consultation workshop and 6 sub￾national orientation meetings are conducted on the Child Welfare Prakas Workshop and meeting agendas, invitations and reports MoSVY trainers have time available to conduct trainings MoSVY Global Fund Round 7 resources are appropriately managed for planned activities. 2009: 2010 representatives of MoSVY/DoSVY/OSVY, other ministries and NGOs in workshop for the initial development of the AC Prakas 2011: 125 government staff participated in an orientation on the Standards and Guidelines for the Care, Support and Protection of OVC 2011: 172 orphanage directors oriented on the newly revised inspection forms and scoring system 2.2 Training on the use of simple and practical tool kits, including case management, for model Officials from 24 Commune Councils, 12 District Social Affairs Offices and Feedback questionnaires from trainings and orientations 2010: 100 key stakeholders from the MoSVY, the Ministry of Interior, NGOs, Commune 35 communes, districts and provinces will include skills training in working with vulnerable families and children, both to strengthen and preserve families where possible and appropriate and to make referrals. District Councils and 4 Provincial Social Affairs Offices and Provincial Councils are trained in their respective child and family welfare functions. Technical reports, teaching materials and interviews with trainees. Public awareness survey with measurements against baseline indicators Baseline qualitative and follow-up research into public perceptions regarding available services and the contribution they make to support orphans and vulnerable children Councils including CCWC members, and orphanage directors were oriented on the use of the toolkit. 2010: training on application of toolkit in connection with the Prakas testing: 191 participants from MoSVY/DoSVY/OSVY, MoCR, CCWC, monks and NGOs from National level, Prey Veng, Svay Rieng, BTB. Kampong Thom and kampong Speu trained in implementation of AC Prakas. Case-management models in 2 orphanages (Siem Reap and Battambang) in 2011 – 2012, including on-the-job training for staff from the CWD and social workers from province and district level of BTB and SR. January 2012: 25 MoSVY, DoSVY and OSVY staff on case management and social work by SKY April: training of 3 DoSVY and 4 NGO social workers trained on case management, family assessment, reintegration and follow-up. On-the-job training: 3 DoSVY social workers and 4 NGO social workers March- June 2012. 2.3 District and commune level workers in model districts are trained in communication and psycho-social Officials from 24 Commune Councils and 12 Districts are trained in communication and psycho-social support 2010: 454 of social workers who work with children and families have been trained in psychosocial support provision by TPO. MoSVY trainers received intensive instruction in 36 development for orphans and vulnerable children order to assume the lead role in psychosocial support provision. Jointly funded with other donor. 2.4 Professional education in social work is strengthened with the Royal University of Phnom Penh 4 RUPP students carry out field-based social work practicums in child and family welfare Computers, desks and other teaching equipment available to RUPP Reports of RUPP student social welfare practicums The funding of USAID ensured a contribution to the Social Work Faculty of the Royal University of Phnom Penh for office supplies and necessary equipment including an LCD projector and a ramp to make the facilities more accessible for students and faculty staff with a disability All students from RUPP carry out internships. 22 students will BA will graduate in June 2012 (Verification has been done with the RUPP and they confirm that 22 students will graduate from the BA degree) One student is doing an internship in UNICEF PP office and another one in SKY office. 2.5 A public awareness campaign and corresponding advocacy materials to promote family-based care are developed and launched based on qualitative baseline research Government, NGO partners, and the general public are aware of the damaging effect of residential institutional care and the positive effect of family-based care Communication campaign materials Communication strategy for child protection to be developed in 2012 and carried out as of 2013 based on key result areas in the next two￾year work plan. An interim communication plan based on the findings of the study on attitudes towards residential care has been developed. (to be shared with you) Key messages have been embedded into the Commune Committee for Women and Children’s orientation training, which will be rolled out in late 37 2012 (after Commune elections). Key messages promoting family and community care are contained within the 2012 year planner, which was distributed to all commune council members nationwide. The messages will be revised accordingly for 2013. 2.6 A study is conducted on the impact of institutionalization on children in Cambodia. Services are visible and accessible; public, professionals and government officials are aware of services and where to access them Report on the effects of institutionalisation on children in Cambodia and launch materials It became evident that there was a need to do an attitudes study, because of the great need to develop advocacy strategies and social norms change interventions. For this, the country would need country-specific evidence of attitudes towards residential care. The research study that was done does also contains a solid chapter based on secondary research that discusses global research on the impact of residential care of children, and also integrates evidence from a 2007 HOSEA study on perceptions of young people in residential care. Both these clearly reflect the impact of residential care to children, both the very young, as well as adolescents and young people (the HOSEA material). The study was presented in January 2012 and resulted in a lot of media attention and public discussion where high level government officials 38 pronounced themselves on the importance of family-based care. Results (Activities) 3 3.1 An analysis of professional development needs and capacity is conducted in model communes, district, provinces Training materials meet local capacity development needs Capacity analysis report Cooperation between MoI and MoSVY can be established at national level and communicated to sub￾national level Communes cooperate with District Social Affairs Offices District Social Affairs Offices are motivated to provide services and have the capacity to keep good case records. NGO’s provide support and information and agree to cooperate with local Government actors. 2009: a capacity Assessment of the CCWC was conducted Analysis on the behavioural competencies required for CWCC members to manage relationships and work was used to guide development of a multi-year capacity development strategy that will support institutional development of the CCWC. The study also helped leverage resources from other donors to support a more systematic approach to capacity development at the local level, with an additional US$1.5 million to be invested in the commune budget and its support structures. (Clarification: the additional funds came from UNDP (through Sida contribution) to support 1,199 communes in 18 provinces/capital, outside the 6 UNICEF supported provinces (422 communes). UNDP allocated 1,000 US Dollars to each communes for four main activities: maternal and child heath, water and sanitation, community pre-school and gender and child protection. The representatives from the 18 provinces visited the six provinces in 2010 on how to support CC/CCWC on these activities.) 39 3.2 A toolkit is developed which will assist communes, districts and provinces to assess and plan appropriate interventions to strengthen and preserve families where possible and appropriate and to make alternative placements for children when necessary. Commune, district and provincial workers make regular and systematic use of the toolkit in their work Discretionary fund, including guidelines for disbursement, operational in 24 model communes Tool, kit, training pack and associated materials available in Communes Agenda and minutes of focus groups/consultations held to assess usefulness of toolkit 2 manuals, training materials and guidance for the use of discretionary funds developed together with LGCR for the CCWCs Operational guidelines of the AC Prakas (find the documents attached, including the the new draft training manual version which will be introduced following the commune elections) Guidelines and standards for support to OVC 3.3 Basic family support services are provided by Commune Councils Trained family support workers are operational in 24 Communes A minimum of 12 communes contract an additional family support worker Agreements for cooperation MoSVY & MoI Commune reports including statistical data for monitoring purposes Discretionary fund records; interviews with recipients 27 CCWC received social envelop funds and provided family support in 2011. Some constraints since funds were received too late to be used in several communes 3.4 Pagoda responses to OVC in at least 12 communes will pilot an innovative model of providing family support Monks in 12 communes respond to commune requests by providing outreach support to vulnerable families. Observation and interviews with stakeholders In 1010, 10 communes in four provinces monks were trained to work closely with the CCWC and DSVY together to identify and support families at risk of separation and increase community awareness. This led to the formal recognition of the role of religious clergy in the new government prakas, Observations from field visits confirm the positive feedback 40 from children and their families who were supported. 3.5 District-level Social Affairs workers provide referral services and mentor commune workers District social affairs officer attends Commune Council meetings 6 times per year and provide mentoring and support to family support workers. Individual Case Files Social workers in 8 districts receive special support to work referral and reintegration of all types of children victims. In some areas of work mostly in Poipet Centre for reintegration of victims of trafficking. However, beginning of 2011 several discussion were carried out with MoSVY to hand –over the work to the government. Discussion is still underway. 3.6 The Provincial Departments of Social Affairs coordinate and manage child and family welfare services. Provincial service directories published and disseminated to districts and communes Provincial Services Directories in each Commune OVC TF in 5 Provinces coordinate with districts and communes to mobilize services and strengthen referral systems Intersectoral cooperation strengthened with the justice sector, particularly law enforcement response to all forms of violence against children, including domestic violence and exploitation Forums held with both justice and social welfare actors to increase understanding of complementary functions vis-à￾vis child protection, more reports/referrals from social welfare/NGOS to judicial police and vice versa, social workers monitoring situation of children in prisons. Over last several years, there has been marked improvement in the law enforcement response to various forms of violence committed against children, 41 including sexual abuse, domestic violence, and exploitation 3.7 The model of child and family welfare is documented and shared Systems for monitoring social services developed and tested 85% positive feedback from clients receiving services Short documentaries, case studies and stories on the model HI stories developed Video on CCWC work developed, including child protection U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523 www.usaid.gov