1
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 
Report on Findings
VBNK
October 2020
1
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Table of contents
List of abbreviations ii
Executive Summary 1
1. 6
1.1 Background and overview of the consultations 6
1.2 Methodology 6
1.3 Challenges 7
2. 7
2.1 Where are things now with the development of a national system of care and protection in 
Cambodia? 8
2.1.1 Policy level 8
2.1.2 Implementing level 11
2.2 What needs to be done moving forward to further build and strengthen the system? 12
2.2.1 Ongoing policy and systems development and roll out 13
2.2.2 Resource mobilization and development 14
2.2.3 Policy level partnership strengthening 14
2.3 To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform at scale in 
Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short? 15
2.4 To what extent is Family Care First maintaining a focus on its overall aim of “catalyzing a 
transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities that address its four 
objectives? 16
3. 17
4. 19
4.1 Policy level 19
4.2 Implementing level 19
Annexes 21
Annex 1: Scope of Work 22
Annex 2: List of interviewees and workshop participants 28
Annex 3: Workshop program and session plan 31
Annex 4: Presentations used in the workshops – English versions 34
Annex 5: List of laws, legal instruments and other relevant documents 47
2
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
List of abbreviations
3PC Partnership Program for the Protection of Children 
FCF Family Care First 
M&E Monitoring and evaluation 
MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance 
MoI Ministry of Interior 
MoSVY Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation 
NGOs Non-government organizations 
QLS Quarterly Learning Summits 
RCI Residential care institutes 
REACT Responsive and Effective Child Welfare Systems Transformation
RGC Royal Government of Cambodia 
SCI Save the Children International 
SNAs Sub-national administrations 
UN United Nations
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
1
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Executive Summary
Introduction
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been supporting agencies 
and processes to promote the care and protection of children in Cambodia since 2009, initially 
through the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and since 2015 additionally through the 
Family Care First (FCF) initiative. FCF was co-created by USAID and key stakeholders, including 
the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY). Its primary goal is to 
reduce the number of children growing up outside of safe, nurturing, family-based care. FCF is 
implemented by Save the Children International (SCI) through a two-pronged approach in which 
they disburse grants to local implementing non-government organizations (NGOs) and also 
facilitate partnership and learning activities among all the participating agencies, including the 
Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), sub-national administrations (SNAs), and the funded 
NGOs. As the first phase of FCF is coming to a close USAID initiated an information gathering 
process to help them gain perspectives from key stakeholders to inform the next phase of support.
This was done by engaging an independent agency, the Cambodian NGO VBNK, to conduct a 
series of consultation interviews and workshops in order to engage stakeholders in discussion on 
the key questions detailed below. 
Following document review, the consultations were conducted through individual meetings (some 
virtual) with key informants, and five workshops in Battambang, Siem Reap, Sihanoukville, and 
two in Phnom Penh, one for implementing level personnel from the municipality and Kandal 
province, one for national level informants. Challenges arose from the restrictions in place in 
response to the Covid-19 virus, but the process was able to move ahead once the government eased 
the controls. A further challenge arose from RGC protocols about inviting officials to meetings, 
but this was overcome through collaboration between USAID and MoSVY.
Findings on the Key Questions
For the purposes of this report the findings have been differentiated at ‘policy’ and ‘implementing’ 
levels. Policy refers to the laws and other government instruments in place to specify what should 
happen, and how it should happen, and in general terms the actors at policy level are MoSVY, 
and in some cases other RGC ministries, the major donors, United Nations (UN) agencies, and the 
leading international NGOs in the sector. The implementing level encompasses all the decisions 
and activities that occur in direct work with children and families, undertaken at the various levels 
and departments of SNAs and the NGOs, which are mostly but not exclusively, local.
Key question 1: Where are things now with the development of a national system of care and 
protection in Cambodia?
As everything at the policy level applies to the whole country, this is valid for assessment of the 
extent of a national system. 
- Legal framework: laws, strategies, policies and guidelines: important laws and supporting 
legal instruments, and national action plans are in place. However, there are still significant gaps, 
the most pressing of which appears to be the Reintegration Guidelines that have been developed 
but not yet approved by MoSVY, and have not, therefore, been rolled out. 
2
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
- MoSVY Capacity: While many structures and systems for implementation are in place not 
all have yet been fully, or successfully implemented. MoSVY respondents, and others, are clear 
that in order to function most efficiently, and effectively MoSVY would need more capacity than 
is currently in place. Several dimensions of capacity are needed including: 
o More financial resources to support implementation; 
o More technical knowledge and skills to manage and monitor implementation; and,
o A national database to provide the comprehensive and up to date information. 
- Partnerships and collaboration at policy level: In place at policy level are a set of 
significant relationships among key actors who are all working towards the same broad goals with 
regards to child care and protection. However, it is notable that the key partnerships are all with 
external entities and the level of cohesion and supportive collaboration within MoSVY and 
between MoSVY and other key ministries is not high. MoSVY itself recognizes, as do other 
stakeholders, that they do not have strong political capital within RGC, which inhibits the pursuit 
of its agenda, and the ability to secure the resources and cooperation it needs from other ministries. 
Some partner agencies functioning at the policy level are also working at implementing level. In 
general, the level of cooperation and collaboration appears to be good, but there are some serious 
complications within these relationships, which manifests in NGO criticism of USAID, and to a 
lesser extent of UNICEF. The problems appear to have arisen as the result of historical decision 
making but are also possibly due to a lack of understanding of the different mandates of different 
types of agency. Importantly MoSVY respondents did not express similar views to the NGO 
critics, but were clearly frustrated with some aspects of how FCF has been designed and is 
functioning, in particular issues about how the budget was used in the early stages of the project 
and the fact that they do not have direct control of any of the financial resources involved now. 
They are also frustrated at the lack of cooperation between some partners and have recently taken 
steps to resolve that problem through sector planning processes.
- Children with disabilities: Another significant gap is multi-ministry policy and guidelines 
on how to support children with physical and other types of disability.
Because FCF has only been rolled out in five pilot provinces, the assessment at implementing 
level can only be viewed as a partial indicator for the national system.
- Partnerships and collaboration at implementing level: There is a good deal of soft 
capacity in place in terms of commitment of all actors in the networks and partnerships established 
by FCF to work together at implementing level to achieve results. While there is of course always 
room for improvement, overall this is a strength of how things are within FCF.
- Technical capacity regarding procedures in implementing agencies: As noted above, 
policies, systems, guidelines and standards do exist. However, it cannot be said that they are 
known, understood and used with any degree of consistency among either the SNAs or NGOs 
working at implementing level. There are individuals within many implementing agencies who do 
know what they should do and how to do it. But workshop feedback indicated that there are also 
SNAs and NGOs which lack personnel, or sufficient personnel, with the necessary knowledge and 
skills. The result, in some geographic areas, is fairly widespread confusion, particularly in some 
rural areas, about roles and responsibilities at this level. 
- Social workers: The need for more government appointed social workers, particularly at 
District level, was noted by many respondents. Additionally the ‘Guidelines on Basic 
Competences for Social Workforce in Cambodia’ officially launched in late 2019 have yet to be 
3
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
fully rolled out, with the result that many inconsistencies remain in what is considered to be social 
work practice and how it is delivered. 
- Children with disabilities: As noted above at the policy level, the systems are not yet in 
place to deal with cases where children have any type of disability. This was seen to be particularly 
challenging for those at the implementing level, who often found they had no viable options for 
suitable placements for this group of children. In Phnom Penh and Kandal it was noted that there 
are also significant difficulties when working with young offenders and drug users.
- Geographic limitations of the pilot: because the Action Plan, and FCF/REACT support 
for it, is being piloted in only five provinces, cases occur where children cross borders into 
provinces that do not yet have the same system in place. It is then very difficult to track what has 
happened and where they are, so the children effectively disappear from the system. 
Key question 2: What needs to be done moving forward to further build and strengthen the 
system?
The summary answer to the question of strengthening the system is that efforts are needed to 
address the gaps noted in the analysis above about what is not in place, especially if the next phase 
involves scale up to more or all provinces. 
- Ongoing policy and systems development and roll out: MoSVY needs to complete the 
development and approval of essential guidelines and they already have processes and support in 
place to complete much of this work. Most pressing is the need for the Reintegration Guidelines. 
Capacity development initiatives to ensure that all implementing actors know and understand all 
the relevant laws and guidelines is a priority need. Additionally, an initiative is needed to bring 
together all ministries concerned with the care, education and health of children with disabilities.
- Resource mobilization and development: A priority need is to strengthen MoSVY capacity 
to advocate for more resources and collaboration with other ministries. This calls for development 
of a comprehensive database within the Ministry. Another priority need is for more social workers 
at the District level.
- Policy level partnership strengthening: higher levels of alignment between supporting 
partners would help to strengthen the system moving forward. In order to avoid the current 
negative attitudes held by some becoming irretrievably embedded in the system, a widely 
consultative and participatory process is needed for formulation of the next phase.
Key question 3: To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform at 
scale in Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short?
Within the scope of the consultations all stakeholders acknowledge that the successes that have 
been achieved would not have been possible without USAID support through FCF. At 
implementing level, especially among the NGO partners, FCF is seen almost exclusively as the 
funding channel that USAID uses to support their work on reintegration of children into the 
community, either family or foster care. In terms of implementation, without doubt the FCF 
contribution has laid the foundation for roll out of the collaborative approach at implementing level
across the whole country. 
In terms of care reform at the policy level the issue is rather more complex. Policy level actors are 
all insistent that this reform process was not a USAID initiative as it was underway before USAID 
became involved. Getting to the current state of national level plans, policies, frameworks, 
guidelines has been a long process involving many agencies working with MoSVY in various 
4
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
ways and initiatives. An inhibiting factor is the lingering negative feelings about some historical 
decisions made at the time FCF was launched, but these are largely beyond the control of USAID. 
But more than one policy level respondent noted that USAID had made an important long-term 
and strategic contribution to sector reform.
Key question 4: To what extent is Family Care First maintaining a focus on its overall aim of 
“catalyzing a transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities that 
address its four objectives?
FCF appears to be very purposeful, at multiple levels, in its focus on transforming the child care 
system. FCF is contributing at the level of its aim because without doubt change is happening, but 
the change is incremental rather than transformational. Within the workshops there was general 
agreement that the objectives are being achieved, but discussion of specifics was challenging 
because it appears that all implementing partners are struggling with the demands of the FCF and 
SCI monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements. There is significant achievement in 
addressing three of the four objectives, as follows.
1. Prevent family-child separation: No information readily available about results at the time 
of the inquiries.
2. Decrease the number of children living in orphanages and other residential care 
institutions: MoSVY figures show this objective is being achieved
3. Increase the number of children reintegrated into family-based care: MoSVY figures show 
this objective is being achieved
4. Decrease the number of orphanages and other residential care institutions: MoSVY figures 
show this objective is being achieved. (However, it is important to note that closing 
institutions is beyond the powers of the project, that is a MoSVY mandate.)
Management of FCF implementation
While the consultation process was not intended to be an evaluation of FCF or conducted in a way 
to imply that it was, a number of issues about project management were raised repeatedly by the 
partner NGOs. These issues are noted as an output of the consultations, because they have 
relevance for how the next phase of the program should be framed. The feedback was discussed 
with the SCI Chief of Party, who assured that where possible steps are in hand to manage the 
problems. The main points of concern are as follows:
- SCI approaches the relationship with partners as a matter of control rather than collaboration:
This problem is inherent in relationships where one agency is both the grant maker and at the same time 
responsible for the project’s technical inputs and process facilitation; 
- Partners are expected to attend too many meetings: this may have been an issue of timing because 
SCI had called more meetings than usual to monitor Covid-19 impact;
- The M&E system is complex and is combined with heavy reporting requirements: this appears to 
be a very valid concern with which many partners struggle, to the extent that some have decided not to 
apply for further funding from FCF;
- Expectations that partners align their policies to those of USAID and SCI: both USAID and 
SCI have some policies that must be adhered to globally by all their partners. These are non-negotiable;
- There is little recognition of partners’ existing expertise: this is an issue of SCI staff attitudes, 
linked to the controlling nature of the relationship noted above; and,
- That SCI systems and requirements change when senior staff change: this appears to be a one-off, 
that occurred early in the project.
5
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Recommendations 
Policy level
- Approaches be found to overcome current constraints so that USAID can have a direct 
partnership with the Ministry.
- Support scale up and roll out to more or all provinces
- Support MoSVY to respond to and manage the complexities of the functional transfer to SNAs, 
as part of the ongoing whole of government reform
Implementing level
- Consider a different structural design for Phase II. In particular consider:
o Reverting to the original intention to have two different agencies managing the project, 
one providing technical inputs while the other manages grants; and,
o Making larger grants to fewer, stronger partners able to cope with all the transaction 
requirements of USAID funding.
- Extend capacity development initiatives for all actors to understand their roles and 
responsibilities, and all the related guidelines and procedures
6
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
1. Introduction
1.1 Background and overview of the consultations
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been supporting agencies 
and processes to promote the care and protection of children in Cambodia since 2009, initially 
through the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and since 2015 additionally through the 
Family Care First (FCF) initiative. FCF was co-created by USAID and key stakeholders, including 
the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY). Its primary goal is to 
reduce the number of children growing up outside of safe, nurturing, family-based care. FCF is 
implemented by Save the Children International (SCI) through a two-pronged approach in which 
they disburse grants to local implementing non-government organizations (NGOs) and also 
facilitate partnership and learning activities among all the participating agencies, including the 
Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC), sub-national administrations (SNAs), and NGOs.
As the first phase of FCF is coming to a close USAID initiated an information gathering process 
to help them gain perspectives from key stakeholders to inform the next phase of support. This was 
done by engaging an independent agency, the Cambodian NGO VBNK, to conduct a series of 
consultation interviews and workshops in order to engage stakeholders in discussion on the 
following key questions: 
1. Where are things now with the development of a national system of care and protection 
in Cambodia?
2. What needs to be done moving forward to further build and strengthen the system?
3. To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform at scale in 
Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short?
4. To what extent is Family Care First maintaining a focus on its overall aim of “catalyzing 
a transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities that address its 
four objectives?
Full details of the background and expected consultation process are given in the Scope of Work 
at Annex 1.
1.2 Methodology
Background reading resources to inform the consultations were provided by USAID, UNICEF and 
other key informants. The consultations were conducted through individual meetings (some 
virtual) with key informants, and a series of five workshops in Battambang, Siem Reap, 
Sihanoukville, and two in Phnom Penh, one for implementing level personnel from the 
municipality and Kandal province, and one for national level informants. See Annex 2 for list of 
individual interviewees and workshop attendants.
Throughout the process VBNK maintained regular communication with the USAID mission to 
keep them informed of progress, and to work together to find ways to overcome the challenges 
encountered, which are detailed below.
Following discussions between VBNK and USAID the proposed workshop schedule was revised 
to allow more time for the primary purpose, namely feedback from participants about progress and 
7
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
discussion of the key questions. (See Annexes 3 and 4 for the workshop program, session plan and 
presentations used). Information about FCF generally, and data on progress to date on the 
reunification and reintegration of children into family-based care was supplied by USAID and 
MoSVY respectively. Following the first workshop in Battambang VBNK further revised the 
program to simplify the session on human-centered design, which had proved to be problematic 
and time-consuming. The revised session worked better in subsequent workshops.
Initial findings were shared in a mission out-brief session with USAID on 21st September 2020. 
SCI and UNICEF were also further consulted to seek clarity on some issues that had arisen and 
their response on some of the findings.
1.3 Challenges
The first challenge to conducting the consultations was the precautions put in place by the RGC to 
combat and control the risks of COVID-19 spreading throughout the country. This meant that the 
original timetable was not achievable as both travel restrictions and prohibitions on meetings were 
in place. This did not prevent preparations and individual interviews from taking place but did 
postpone the workshops. When it became clear that the country had fortunately avoided mass 
spread of the virus it was possible to rearrange the schedule and move ahead with the workshops 
during the period of 10th August, 2020 to 10th September, 2020.
A significant challenge came to light in terms of inviting SNA officials to attend workshops. RGC 
protocols generally require that invitations for all levels of personnel must be sent to very senior 
post-holders, e.g. a provincial governor, who will review the invitation and decide if anyone under 
their authority should attend, and if so, who should attend. It also came to light that such invitations 
require authorization from the relevant central ministry before provincial governors or directors 
will consider the invitation. VBNK issuing invitations was not considered to be valid and it was 
necessary for USAID to request MoSVY to help facilitate the process. It also emerged that it was 
considered necessary for the invitations to government officials to be delivered in person, 
necessitating a pre-workshop mission not only by the logistics team but also by the team leader. A 
senior MoSVY official at the final workshop, which was poorly attended, commented that the 
invitation with USAID logo at the head but signed by VBNK was confusing and the likely cause 
of some people not attending.
2. Summary of Findings on the Key Questions
Child care and protection, and the substantive network of actors involved, is a very complex, multi￾level system. Commenting on the system without any differentiation of the levels would not bring 
sufficient clarity to enable understanding of what is happening. For the purposes of this report the 
levels have been identified as ‘policy’ and ‘implementing’. While this is undoubtedly a 
simplification, because there are many sub-levels involved, and there is a lot of crossover between 
them, it is sufficient for the purposes of this analysis. Policy in this context refers to the laws and 
other government instruments in place to specify what should happen, and how it should happen. 
This includes ministry level action plans, and specification of standards and guidelines for 
implementation. In general terms the actors at policy level are MoSVY, and in some cases other 
RGC ministries, the major donors, United Nations (UN) agencies, and the leading international 
NGOs in the sector. The implementing level encompasses all the decisions and activities that occur 
8
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
in direct work with children and families. The actors involved at implementing level are the various 
levels and departments of SNAs and the NGOs, which are mostly but not exclusively, local.
2.1 Where are things now with the development of a national system of care and 
protection in Cambodia?
2.1.1 Policy level
As everything at the policy level applies to the whole country, this is valid for assessment of the 
extent of a national system. 
2.1.1.1 Legal framework: laws, strategies, policies and guidelines 
A number of important laws and supporting legal instruments are in place, along with national 
action plans on key issues. In addition to everything that MoSVY had issued, the list is extensive 
because it is important to include everything relevant, both inter-ministerial as well as from other 
ministries from the whole of government. See Annex 5 for the list of the most important laws, sub￾decrees and other relevant documents.
Despite the many positive attributes of the national system already established, there are still 
significant gaps. For example, not all necessary guidelines are in place. Many cited the pressing 
need for the Reintegration Guidelines that have been developed but not yet approved by MoSVY, 
and have not, therefore, been rolled out. At Ministry level there is awareness of the importance of 
completing this process, and concern was expressed that as yet there is no clear procedure for 
implementation of reintegration and ensuring common standards of action and support. 
Respondents within MoSVY also noted that some existing policies and guidelines are very out of 
date and in need of revision, especially on matters such as financial allowances. 
2.1.1.2 MoSVY Capacity
MoSVY stated that all the necessary structures and systems for implementation are in place. 
Reference was made in this context to the sub-decrees issued in 2019 authorizing transfer of 
MoSVY’s provincial operations to the new unified authorities under the management of the 
Ministry of Interior (MoI). However, some national level respondents noted that while some 
structures and systems may exist in theory it is not yet clear that all or any of them have been 
successfully implemented at SNA level. As one respondent noted ‘there is a long way to go and it 
still needs a lot of external support’. 
MoSVY respondents, and others, are clear that in order to function to most efficient effect MoSVY 
would need more capacity than is currently in place. Several dimensions of capacity are needed 
including: 
- More financial resources to support implementation; 
- More technical knowledge and skills to manage and monitor implementation; and,
- A national database to provide the comprehensive and up to date information. 
A difference of opinion exists among some policy level stakeholders about exactly what MoSVY 
needs capacity to be able to do. Within the Ministry the view is that, in addition to all they do and 
want to do further at policy level, it is their mandate to control implementation. This would include 
the flow of financial and technical resources to the implementation level, and also the management 
9
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
of processes to ensure that the entire system had effective communication and information sharing 
for the purposes of both improving implementation and informing policy development. This is not, 
in fact, a view that is fully in accord with the recent functional transfer to SNAs, but maybe a 
reflection of the frustration being felt about the changes as expressed, for example, by one Ministry 
respondent that they ‘cannot even call a meeting now’. 
However, some actors external to MoSVY are of the opinion that within a decentralized 
government system the role of any ministry should be to establish the frameworks and systems for 
implementation and then monitor the implementers: central ministries should not be directly 
involved in implementation. In particular the opinions expressed were that MoSVY should at this 
time concentrate its efforts on internal capacity development for three purposes of high 
importance. Firstly, continual improvements to policy, systems and guidelines to enable 
implementers to work effectively. Secondly, establishing and implementing comprehensive 
nationwide monitoring and evaluation systems to ensure that policies and guidelines are being 
followed. And, thirdly, securing resources and other forms of inter-ministerial cooperation within 
RGC (see 2.1.1.3 below). 
2.1.1.3 Partnerships and collaboration at policy level
In place at policy level are a set of significant relationships among key actors who are all working 
towards the same broad goals with regards to child care and protection. Working with and 
supporting MoSVY are:
- Development partners, notably USAID and the European Union supporting FCF/REACT, 
plus others supporting agencies such as UNICEF in relevant work;
- UNICEF, who are a long-term partner; and, 
- International NGOs, most notably Friends International and SCI.
However, it is notable that this set of positive and supportive partnerships is all with external 
entities. It has to be noted that the level of cohesion and supportive collaboration within MoSVY 
and between MoSVY and other key ministries is not high. MoSVY itself recognizes, as do other 
stakeholders, that they do not have strong political capital within RGC and this is a major factor 
inhibiting both the pursuit of its own agenda with clarity and purpose, and the ability to secure the 
resources and cooperation it needs in particular from the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) 
and MoI.
Another point raised by the Ministry is that of communication and the sharing of information 
between NGOs and MoSVY. While noting that some NGOs are very good about sharing case 
information, frustration was expressed that others do not, but the NGOs still expect MoSVY to be 
the source of the information when they need it. It was suggested that this problem could in part 
be overcome by strengthening information sharing systems at provincial level. 
Some of the partner agencies functioning at the policy level are also working at implementing 
level. In general, the level of cooperation and collaboration appears to be good. While it is not 
unique to this sector or initiative that civil society actors accuse donors and UN agencies of pushing 
their own agenda onto governments, it was notable that there appear to be particularly strong 
feelings in this regard where FCF is concerned. Some policy level NGO respondents are of the 
opinion that FCF is very unpopular within MoSVY, because it had been pushed onto the Ministry 
10
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
and had been accepted as the only option for accessing USAID money. (It was not felt appropriate 
to explore whether or not the statements made by some individuals were in fact the accurate 
representations of the Ministry’s views that they were purported to be.) 
Importantly MoSVY respondents did not express similar views to the NGO critics, but were clearly 
frustrated with some aspects of how FCF has been designed and is functioning, in particular issues 
about how the budget was used in the early stages of the project and the fact that they do not have 
direct control of any of the financial resources involved now. MoSVY appears to be very open to 
NGO engagement in initiatives such as FCF, but they do express concern about the inconsistencies 
of approaches and standards applied by different implementing NGOs. They also expressed 
frustration that there is not greater collaboration between FCF and Partnership Program for the 
Protection of Children (3PC) but have recently addressed that issue by requesting a joint planning 
exercise. There was also similar criticism of UNICEF from policy level NGOs, which again 
seemed to display some lack of knowledge about UNICEF’s mandate and their long history of 
support and collaboration with MoSVY, some of which has been supported by USAID. 
All who commented about the partnership challenges were clearly knowledgeable in terms of the 
issues and complexity of how to address the needs and challenges. But none of the NGO critics of 
USAID and UNICEF seemed willing or able to acknowledge their commitment to their own 
mandate and approach was a factor in creating a competing agenda within the broader system, and 
that this creates additional challenges for MoSVY to deal with. It is highly unlikely that in such a 
complex area of need any one agency would have all the answers about the right way to do things, 
but some appear to think they do. 
Some respondents felt strongly that issues arising from the inception of FCF created an unhelpful 
legacy that is still having negative impact. In part this appears to be the tensions created within the 
network by the decision to start FCF rather than extend support to 3PC. A further factor was the 
withdrawal of the Global Alliance for Children resulting in SCI becoming both the fundraising 
and grant-making ‘backbone’ and partnership facilitator of the network (this is addressed in more 
detail at section 3: Management of FCF Implementation below). Some respondents also felt that 
the original purpose of FCF was to lead learning through piloting innovations, and then move into 
scale up, but that this has fallen away in the sense that there are no significant innovations currently 
underway, and the program has not moved beyond the original five provinces. These respondents 
felt the momentum for change and development had got stuck in the practicalities of 
implementation. One summarized these issues as ‘unintentional design faults’ in the FCF concept 
and noted that going forward must be different. 
2.1.1.4 Children with disabilities
Another significant gap is multi-ministry policy and guidelines on how to support children with 
disabilities. This is relevant for both physical disability and for children with learning and severe 
behavior challenges, especially those on the autism spectrum. Some cases would need effective 
collaboration with both health and education authorities. As yet no appropriate policies and 
procedures are in place, but preliminary steps have been taken towards establishing what is 
needed.
11
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
2.1.2 Implementing level
Unlike the policy level, because FCF has only been rolled out in five pilot provinces, the 
assessment can only be viewed as a partial indicator for the national system.
2.1.2.1 Partnerships and collaboration at implementing level
The information gained in the workshops indicates that there is a good deal of soft capacity in 
place in terms of commitment of all actors to work together at implementing level to achieve 
results. The networks and partnerships established by FCF are clearly functioning effectively and 
enable different actors to work together well. This is important because, as described below, there 
are significant gaps in other types of capacity which could, in some circumstances, lead to tension 
and lack of cooperation. But that does not appear to be the case and there appears to be a strong 
spirit of joint effort to understand the system and overcome the problems. The local actors also 
clearly have knowledge of local communities, which is an asset when working with individual 
cases and trying to solve problems. 
However, despite the overall very positive comments on the nature of how all agencies work 
together, some workshop NGO participants suggested that they needed to have in place a process 
for direct dialogue with MoSVY in order to jointly reflect on how the various policies and 
guidelines work at implementing level, and to make adjustments where needed. This is an 
interesting request given that all partners are routinely involved in Quarterly Learning Summits 
(QLS), so it would seem that those who made the suggestion do not experience the QLS as meeting 
this particular need that they have identified. The fact that this suggestion was made without 
reference to the QLS would seem to indicate that the NGOs perceive the QLS as having a different 
purpose. This was discussed with SCI who suggested that perhaps the formal nature of any event 
involving senior ministry personnel acts as an inhibitor to NGO personnel feeling they can engage 
in open discussion of the type that those making this suggestion would like to have. 
2.1.2.2 Technical capacity regarding procedures in implementing agencies
As noted above, policies, systems, guidelines and standards do exist. However, it cannot be said 
that they are known, understood and used with any degree of consistency among either the SNAs 
or NGOs working at implementing level. There are individuals within many implementing 
agencies who do know what they should do and how to do it. But workshop feedback indicated 
that there are also SNAs and NGOs which lack personnel, or sufficient personnel, with the 
necessary knowledge and skills. 
The result, in some geographic areas, is fairly widespread confusion about roles and 
responsibilities at this level. While it is an issue everywhere, it did seem that it is more of a problem 
in rural areas. It seems that in cases where both the SNA and NGO personnel lack experience, it 
results in confused expectations about who should do what. However, the challenges appeared to 
occur most frequently when SNA personnel were not fully aware of their roles and responsibilities. 
This confusion is sometimes combined with and exacerbated by lack of resources, depending on 
the policies of and support provided by NGOs in the particular geographic area. Examples cited 
were the focal point person of a Commune Council being overwhelmed by expectations that they 
would act in situations where they had neither the knowledge nor the resources to do so. Another 
example, cited often, was the delays involved in getting necessary paperwork processed in SNA 
12
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
offices by people not knowing what they should do, which sometimes caused major problems in 
urgent cases. 
It was particularly interesting that no one consulted at the implementing level made any reference 
to the decentralization reforms which resulted in transfer of the sub-national level functions of 
MoSVY to the newly reorganized SNA under the control of MoI. Policy level respondents who 
are aware of and understand the complexities of the transfer process noted that it is ‘crucial’ for 
the SNA to understand their new roles and responsibilities, but were of the opinion that so far 
everything is new to the officials in the SNA and significant capacity development initiatives are 
needed.
2.1.2.3 Social workers
The need for more government appointed social workers, particularly at District level, was noted 
by many respondents. Some NGOs have social workers who have sufficient knowledge and 
experience to be effective, but the coverage is not universal. Service availability depends on which 
NGO is covering a particular geographic area. The ‘Guidelines on Basic Competences for Social 
Workforce in Cambodia’ were officially launched in late 2019. However, they have not yet been 
fully rolled out so have yet to be fully adopted and adhered to by all the agencies employing social 
workers. The result is that there are still major inconsistencies in what is considered to be social 
work practice and how it is delivered. The need, not only for more social workers, but also for 
much greater consistency in social work training was noted by many respondents at both the policy 
and implementing levels.
2.1.2.4 Children with disabilities
As noted above at the policy level, the systems are not yet in place to deal with cases where children 
have any type of disability. This was seen to be particularly challenging for those at the 
implementing level, who often found they had no viable options for suitable placements for this 
group of children. In Phnom Penh and Kandal additional vulnerable groups mentioned by 
stakeholders were young offenders and drug users. They noted that they have significant 
difficulties when working with these young people, due to the fact that there are so few dedicated 
support options for such groups.
2.1.2.5 Geographic limitations of the pilot
The final significant gap in the system noted at the implementing level was the fact that because 
the Action Plan, and FCF/REACT support for it, is being piloted in only five provinces, cases 
occur where children cross borders into provinces that do not yet have the same system in place. 
It is then very difficult to track what has happened and where they are, so the children effectively 
disappear from the system, which implies a number of worrying risks to their wellbeing. 
2.2 What needs to be done moving forward to further build and strengthen the system?
The summary answer to the question of strengthening the system is that efforts are needed to 
address the gaps noted in the analysis above about what is not in place. This is particularly 
important given there was almost agreement among all respondents that the next phase should 
involve roll out to nation-wide coverage. It was felt that there had been sufficient success and 
learning from this phase of FCF to support taking the program to scale, if the resources are 
available. While it was beyond the scope of the enquiries to go deeply into other related child 
13
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
protection and child care projects and interventions, the general impression given was of a building 
momentum for change based on achievements across multiple fronts. However, it does need to be 
noted that SCI felt that full scale up to nationwide coverage would be very challenging to achieve 
in one step and that it would be best achieved in two phased stages.
2.2.1 Ongoing policy and systems development and roll out
MoSVY needs to complete the development and approval of essential guidelines and they already 
have processes and support in place to complete much of this work. Most pressing is the need for 
the Reintegration Guidelines (mentioned at 2.1.1.1 above) that would establish the standards and 
procedures to ensure standardized approaches would be used nation-wide. In particular, roll out of 
the guidelines would call for the standardization of support packages for families when children 
are reunited or placed in alternative family care. Respondents at all levels noted that there are cases 
where reintegration breaks down due to the economic pressures on the family. Currently there is 
no consistency in what NGOs provide and there is agreement that what some NGOs provide in 
their packages is simply not enough, but it is all they have the resources for. National standards 
would help them to secure the right level of financial support for more effective packages. 
Roll out of the guidelines to all provinces would make significant extra demands on MoSVY and 
it is not clear that they currently have sufficient capacity to manage the process efficiently and 
effectively, particularly with regards to monitoring implementation. MoSVY expressed a strong 
desire to have control of sufficient financial resources to ensure the standardization of support 
packages, but acknowledge that is not likely to be a reality in the foreseeable future. This is another 
area that would be beneficial to explore in the formulation of a new phase. 
While the need for special provisions for children with disabilities and other different needs is 
most keenly felt at the implementing level, the likelihood is that there can be no resolution of this 
challenge until it is dealt with at policy level. The needs of children with disabilities are complex, 
not only a matter of their family and social care, but also of their health and education. At present 
there are very few service provider agencies dealing specifically with disability, and even fewer 
focus exclusively on the needs of disabled children. Recent initiatives within the education system 
are working to provide inclusive education for children with some types of disability, but it is 
likely to be a long time before that is either expanded to cover all types of disability or rolled out 
nationally. It is notable that there does not seem to be any recent Prakas or guidelines on 
implementation of the 2009 Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities. A significant issue is that providing appropriate care and education for disabled 
children can be expensive, which could be costly for ministries with limited resources. Probably 
the most effective way forward would be the establishment of an inter-ministerial initiative similar 
to the Steering Committee on Violence Against Women and Violence Against Children, but it is 
not clear which RGC entity currently has the interest or convening power to establish such an 
initiative.
A consistent theme of feedback from the workshops with implementers was that initiatives to help 
everyone across all agencies understand the law, policies and guidelines, most especially who is 
responsible for what in any given situation, would contribute a great deal to strengthening the 
system going forward. As noted above, the impression given was that in some places too few 
people have the knowledge or ability to apply required procedures in real life cases.
14
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
2.2.2 Resource mobilization and development 
Ultimately the responsibility for resourcing all aspects of child care and protection should be held 
within the RGC, but currently there is still significant need for external support. A priority need 
is, therefore, to strengthen MoSVY capacity to advocate for more resources and collaboration with 
other ministries. This ability would be greatly enhanced by the availability of reliable, 
comprehensive and up to date information that MoSVY could use for evidence-based advocacy. 
However, there is no real consensus about what the necessary database would look like. With 
UNICEF support MoSVY recently launched the case management system PRIMERO, to be used 
nationwide. However, PRIMERO cannot be considered as a national database. There is also in 
place the Child Protection Information Management System, which is cloud-based, but one senior 
MoSVY official would prefer, and is lobbying for, a bigger server-based system that brings 
together all sources of data within the Ministry. As key officials in MoSVY apparently have 
different ideas about what is needed, some effort to bring them to agreement would be a helpful 
first step towards getting any system in place.
USAID, through UNICEF, has already put in place a social worker training program which will 
contribute to addressing one of the gaps noted by many. However, this initiative will only increase 
the complement of SNA social workers by 17, which many believe is far too few. Many noted that 
the social workers who are in post have large workloads with no professional social work support 
to help them deal with difficult and complex cases. What could help to overcome this problem at 
ground level would be the establishment of a supervision1
system for social workers, which 
currently does not appear to exist at all within government systems.
2.2.3 Policy level partnership strengthening
The current challenges in partnerships at the policy level are set out in section 2.1.2.2 above. 
Undoubtedly, higher levels of alignment between supporting partners would help to strengthen the 
system moving forward. Like most ministries in Cambodia MoSVY does not yet have the capacity 
to take a commanding lead of its mandate in terms of ensuring that all participating and 
contributing actors align to support policy and ministry defined needs for inputs and action. If it 
did the Ministry could take the lead in addressing the current problems.
None of the expressed opinions from any source acknowledged the fact that FCF was designed in 
a process of co-creation in which MoSVY was fully involved. Unfortunately, while many referred 
to some or all of these issues as challenges that need to be resolved going forward, few had any 
concrete ideas about how they could be overcome in future. What is clear, however, is that in order 
to avoid the current ‘design faults’ and associated negative attitudes becoming irretrievably 
embedded in the system, a widely consultative and participatory process is needed for formulation 
of the next phase.
1
In the context of social work the word supervision refers to the provision of guidance and support to help social 
workers deal with cases that are complex and the emotionally demands inherent in the nature of the work.
15
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
2.3 To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform at scale in 
Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short?
Within the scope of the consultations all stakeholders acknowledge that the successes that have 
been achieved would not have been possible without USAID support through FCF. However, the 
findings need to be elaborated in order to be appropriately nuanced as a full response to the 
question. 
The first key point is that understanding of FCF’s contribution is very different depending on 
where different agencies sit in the overall system. At the implementing level, especially among the 
NGO partners, FCF is seen almost exclusively as the funding channel that USAID uses to support 
their work on reintegration of children into the community, either family or foster care. This is 
greatly appreciated because, while NGOs may have other sources of funding, no other donor is 
supporting this work to anything like the same extent. 
The fact that the funding support is accompanied by other components such as membership of the 
partnership is also appreciated for the opportunities that are offered. The learning and capacity
development processes built into FCF have helped improve NGO practices for working with 
children and families. This, combined with the relationship building that has occurred across the 
network, both SNAs and NGOs, has contributed to positive cross-agency working practices. 
Additionally, the NGOs noted that working together gives them greater strength to advocate on 
the issues, and it is also helpful for accessing resources and other funding sources. No one at this 
level appears to know anything about USAID working at policy level or, for example, that USAID 
is a key supporter of the work done by UNICEF in this sector. 
The phrase ‘at scale’ is slightly problematic to assess in that it could be applied to more than one 
aspect of the reform process. In terms of implementation, without doubt the FCF contribution has 
laid the foundation for roll out of the collaborative approach across the whole country. It appeared 
to be implicit in the views of many respondents that the demonstrated success achieved through 
FCF has laid the foundations for consideration of nationwide rollout. That in and of itself is an 
important achievement.
In terms of care reform at the policy level the issue is rather more complex. High level actors such 
as UNICEF and the large long-term international NGOs working in the sector do have an 
appreciation of the contribution that has been made by FCF. However, all are very insistent on 
pointing out that this reform process was not a USAID initiative. Some said it was underway before 
USAID became involved and that FCF only added a component to the existing process. Getting to 
the current state of national level plans, policies, frameworks, guidelines has been a long process 
involving many agencies working with MoSVY in various ways and initiatives. 
MoSVY has undoubtedly learned from the implementation of FCF and that has helped inform 
some of their decision making and their ideas when formulating guidelines. However, the fact that 
USAID is precluded from having a direct funding relationship with the RGC does impact on how 
much either USAID or FCF are able to influence policy making and push key government entities 
to support moving the reform to scale.
16
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Another inhibiting factor is the matter mentioned above about the lingering negative feelings with 
regards to the creation of FCF rather than extending support to 3PC. MoSVY respondents 
expressed frustration that there was not closer collaboration between FCF and 3PC, but were 
pleased that a joint planning initiative had now been undertaken at the Ministry’s request. At the 
implementing level there is some confusion about the two networks, but it is not an inhibiting 
factor. However, at the policy level the tensions have prohibited the level of collaboration that 
would have been desirable to have all actors working together to support and strengthen MoSVY 
to increase the pace and scope of the reform process. Thus, it could be said that where FCF falls 
short in contributing to care reform is in not being part of a high-level partnership with all members 
pulling together to promote change. But that is a legacy of past decision making. It is also a legacy 
of other actors’ responses to those decisions, for which USAID cannot be held responsible. It was 
acknowledged by several respondents that the current Mission team working on FCF have made 
considerable efforts to bridge this problematic divide.
Interestingly one national level respondent asked if the consultations were about all of USAID’s 
contributions to child care reform or only FCF. That respondent’s opinion was that USAID had 
been an extremely influential strategic partner, making a very positive contribution over many 
years. However, they also noted it was important to frame and clarify the history of change 
processes as the background to FCF and that FCF had not, for a number of reasons noted above, 
proceeded as originally expected which meant that the contribution made was not as extensive as 
originally expected. 
The scope of work for the consultations did not include consideration of the financial aspects of 
FCF, so there is, for example, no analysis of cost effectiveness against the project budget. 
2.4 To what extent is Family Care First maintaining a focus on its overall aim of “catalyzing 
a transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities that address its 
four objectives?
FCF appears to be very purposeful, at multiple levels, in its focus on transforming the child care 
system. However, as noted above FCF was not the catalyst for the reform process to begin, it was 
already underway before FCF was created. FCF is contributing at the level of its aim because 
without doubt change is happening, but it is incremental rather than transformational. Which is in 
fact probably preferable because a transformation in a complex system has the potential to create 
chaos. Incremental change of steady improvements is a much better approach. Throughout all the 
consultations there was almost complete consensus that there is positive change and FCF is an 
influential factor in that change. It is not possible to assess the extent to which the contributions 
would have been stronger had USAID been able to directly fund MoSVY, but it is probably safe 
to assume that there would have been a degree of positive difference. 
Within the workshops there was general agreement that the objectives are being achieved, but 
discussion of specifics was challenging because it appears that all implementing partners are 
struggling with the demands of the FCF and SCI monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements 
(see section 3 below). 
With regards to the specific objectives of FCF, there is significant achievement in addressing three 
of the four objectives, as follows.
17
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Objectives Achievement
1. Prevent family-child separation No information readily available about 
results at the time of the inquiries.
2. Decrease the number of children living in 
orphanages and other residential care 
institutions
MoSVY figures show this objective is being 
achieved
3. Increase the number of children 
reintegrated into family-based care
MoSVY figures show this objective is being 
achieved 
4. Decrease the number of orphanages and 
other residential care institutions
MoSVY figures show this objective is being 
achieved. However, it is important to note 
that closing institutions is beyond the 
powers of the project, that is a MoSVY 
mandate.
3. Management of FCF implementation
The consultations were not, in any way, intended to be an evaluation of FCF. Nor were any of the 
questions asked of respondents about SCI’s management of FCF implementation. Nevertheless, 
during the course of the workshops a number of issues were raised repeatedly by the partner NGOs. 
These issues need to be noted as an output of the consultations, because they have relevance for 
how the next phase of the program should be framed. 
The feedback has been discussed in full with the SCI Chief of Party. Much of what was raised by 
partners is already known to SCI, and where possible steps are in hand to manage the problems. 
However, as noted below some of the issues are non-negotiable. 
The table below summarizes the main points of feedback with some explanatory comments.
Issue Comment
SCI approaches the relationship 
with partners as a matter of 
control rather than collaboration
This problem is not unique to FCF and SCI. It is inherent in 
relationships where one agency is both the grant maker and 
at the same time responsible for the project’s technical inputs 
and process facilitation. While it is a problem that occurs 
frequently anywhere and in multiple types of projects, it is 
likely exacerbated by factors in Cambodian culture such as 
strong risk aversion which would make SCI staff fearful of 
being blamed if the partner was thought to have done 
anything wrong, thus increasing their inclination to control 
what the partner does. 
Partners are expected to attend 
too many meetings, which are not 
dealing with the issues they want 
to deal with, such as improving 
communications
This complaint may have been influenced by timing. SCI 
apparently called more than the usual number of meetings in 
recent months in order to monitor the impact of COVID-19 on 
the partners’ activities.
18
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Another factor is probably that meetings involving 
government officials invariably need to have a degree of 
formality that can be inhibiting to NGO staff expressing their 
views or asking their questions.
The M&E system is complex and is 
combined with heavy reporting 
requirements
Review of the project results framework and how results are 
monitored was not part of the scope of work, so were not 
explored in detail. However, it was a very strong concern 
expressed by partners, and other donors supporting them, 
that the M&E and reporting for FCF is particularly demanding 
for small NGOs. 
Statements were made to the effect that some NGOs were 
considering not applying for future funding from FCF because 
they feel that the level of transaction requirements is more 
than they can cope with. 
Partners are expected to align 
their policies with those of the 
donors (USAID, and SCI as the 
intermediary) which is unrealistic 
for NGOs with many donors, and 
/or maybe be in conflict with their 
own policies that have been 
carefully formulated to local 
conditions.
Both USAID and SCI have some policies that must be adhered 
to globally by all their partners. These are non-negotiable. It 
is a fact that grantees need to take into account when deciding 
whether or not they wish to apply for/receive funding 
support from these donors. It is not clear to what extent 
partners were made aware of this at the start of their 
engagement with FCF and thus whether or not they made 
informed choices. 
There is little recognition of 
partners’ expertise, especially the 
strong and well-established NGOs. 
This creates resentment and also 
limits the opportunities for 
stronger partners to contribute by 
supporting or mentoring the 
smaller, less experienced NGOs
This issue is linked to the matter of control stated above. It is 
about the attitudes and behavior shown by SCI staff to 
partners. 
That SCI systems and 
requirements change when senior 
staff change
This stems from the change, fairly early in the project cycle, in 
a senior expatriate position. The incoming post holder had a 
greater tendency to manage details than their predecessor 
and this coincided with the time when USAID began to request 
more information. 
Two of the issues raised possibly have significant implications for the design of the next phase of 
FCF. As noted above the original intention was to have two international agencies managing 
project implementation, i.e. one doing coordination of shared decision making and learning, 
communications and fundraising, and the other doing technical support and grant making. Events 
occurred that led to SCI taking on both roles, which has resulted in tensions and challenges. The 
19
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
second is the ability of small NGOs to meet and manage all the requirements that go with USAID 
funding. Both issues are addressed in the recommendations given below. 
4. Recommendations: 
4.1 Policy level
- Approaches be found to overcome current constraints so that USAID can have a direct 
partnership with the Ministry.
Much could be achieved if USAID was able to work directly with MoSVY to engage in policy 
dialogue. This would have the advantage not only of allowing USAID to bring its own expertise 
directly into the development of policy but would also enable MoSVY to create greater cohesion 
among its key support agencies, thus reducing the sense of different agencies each pursuing their 
own agenda. 
Whether working directly with MoSVY or not, USAID can leverage its relationships with other 
relevant ministries and agencies to support MoSVY in development capacity for evidence-based 
advocacy within government. A prerequisite for this is to help resolve the different opinions within 
MoSVY about what type of national database is needed.
- Support roll out to more provinces
FCF phase 1 was an innovative approach contributing to strengthen and extend the previous efforts 
of the Ministry and some partners to address the complex problem of the overreliance on, and the 
high number of Cambodian children living in, residential care. It was piloted in five geographic 
areas. The results have shown that FCF has made a significant contribution to success in the pilot 
areas. The needs exist across the country and currently MoSVY does not have the resources to 
address them without external support. FCF involvement would, therefore, appear to be critical to 
the viability of taking the reform nationwide. Whether or not the next phase should be nationwide, 
as many would like, or only to more provinces, as SCI cautions is likely the most achievable 
approach, is something to be determined in the design phase.
- Support MoSVY to respond to and manage the complexities of the functional transfer to 
SNAs
The RGC’s National Program for Democratic Development is a large and complex whole of 
government reform that has been underway for over a decade. The long-awaited transfer of the 
sub-national functions of some ministries finally became a reality at the start of 2020. How the 
transfer, and with it the loss of central ministry control, will work in reality is yet to be fully 
defined. But it is now a fact that District authorities in particular now have responsibility for actions 
and procedures relating to the well-being of children that they possibly know little about. In terms 
of child care and protection there are many complexities that need to be addressed in order to 
ensure that these reforms continue to be rolled out alongside and within the larger reform program. 
Without clarity coming from the national level about what needs to happen and who is responsible 
for doing it, it is likely that the confusion at implementing level will continue to impede good 
practice. MoSVY needs support to deal with all that has arisen and will arise from the changes.
4.2 Implementing level
- Consider a different structural design for Phase II
20
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Given the feedback detailed above it would be worthwhile to consider reverting to the original 
intention to have two different agencies managing the project. Separating the grant making and 
technical support functions would undoubtedly reduce some of the tensions that currently exist 
between SCI and the partners in the network. This is an important consideration if there is to be 
scale up to more or all provinces with the related extension of the partnership to include many 
more NGOs. 
The second issue to consider is whether or not small NGOs should be the recipients of grants under 
FCF. Making larger grants to fewer, stronger partners might prove to be more efficient and 
effective, again especially in view of the intended nationwide roll out. There could, within this 
structure, be exploration of innovative ways to support small NGOs that contribute to the work 
without them being direct grantees. Working with fewer organizations could also help to address 
some of the other challenges noted, such as the inconsistency in the support packages given to 
families. 
- Extend capacity development initiatives for all actors to understand their roles and 
responsibilities, and all the related guidelines and procedures
As discussed in the findings above there are multiple capacity gaps across all actors at 
implementation level. Whatever form the next phase of FCF may take, it is essential that it has a 
substantive component dedicated to developing the capacity of implementers, especially in terms 
of helping them to understand their roles and responsibilities, and to follow all the related 
guidelines and procedures correctly.
21
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Annexes
Annex 1: Scope of Work
Annex 2: List of interviewees and workshop participants 
Annex 3: Workshop program and session plan
Annex 4: Presentations used in the workshops – English and Khmer
Annex 5: List of laws, legal instruments and other relevant documents
22
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Annex 1: Scope of Work
SECTION C – STATEMENT OF WORK
C.1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
USAID has supported the strengthening of the child protection system in Cambodia since 2009 
with initial support through UNICEF. USAID funding to UNICEF has supported programming 
to ensure that girls and boys, including adolescents (10–19 years), living with families and
outside of family care are increasingly free from violence and exploitation, and from the threat 
of violence and exploitation in their homes, in their communities and in institutions. UNICEF 
Cambodia has worked to support the advancement of Cambodia’s child protection system to 
prevent and respond to violence, exploitation, neglect and abuse of children, as well as
separation of children from their families by strengthening of core functions of the Ministry of
Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY).
In 2015 USAID hosted a co-creation workshop to develop a collective impact approach to the 
alternative care system in Cambodia. “Co-creation” brings different parties together to jointly 
produce a mutually valued outcome. An outcome of this workshop was the Family Care First
initiative which was structured to align with existing activities and programs. This co-creation 
has continued through implementation, with more than 65 partners now engaged in developing 
the various work streams and components of Family Care First activities, with Save the Children 
acting as integrating partner. Family Care First works in five target provinces, Battambang, 
Kandal, Phnom Penh, Siem Reap, and Sihanoukville. Working with the Cambodian 
Government’s Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans, and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY), Save 
the Children oversees activities of a consortium of implementing partners to achieve the program 
goal and objectives. The primary goal of this award is to, “reduce the number of children living 
outside of safe, nurturing, family-based care.”
The objectives of FCF Cambodia are to:
● Prevent unnecessary child-family separation
● Reduce the number of children living in orphanages and other residential care institutions
● Increase the number of children reintegrated into appropriate, protective, and permanent 
family-based care
● Reduce the number of orphanages and other residential care institutions.
C.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
Children grow and develop best when they live in stable, protective families. In 2015, the 
Lancet, the world’s foremost medical journal, described 80 years of research that demonstrates 
how long-term institutional care impairs children’s physical growth, cognitive function, 
neurodevelopment, and social-psychological health. However, in Cambodia, persistent 
poverty and lack of access to education has led to family separation, as households who are 
unable to care for their children turn to residential care.
23
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
The Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation (MoSVY) estimates that, in 
inadequate delivery of social services hinder opportunities to intervene early and prevent family 
separation. Entry points and enrollment to social services are complex and often unavailable for 
families that need it the most. Social work is still an emerging practice.
C.3 WORKSHOP PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Cambodia Care Reform Consultations Workshops will inform USAID’s next five-year 
Cambodia Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for 2020-2025, and will be the 
basis for refining current and future work in the area of child protection. USAID/Cambodia seeks 
to better understand the current impact of its investments in strengthening Cambodia’s child 
protection system through consultative stakeholder workshops in early 2020. USAID/Cambodia 
seeks participants to co-develop and potentially co-invest in scalable and sustainable approaches 
to enable children to grow up in safe, permanent families who can ensure their well-being. The 
participants would be tasked to reflect on past/current efforts in the child protection sector to 
provide input on the following topics:
1. Where are things now with the development of a national system of care and protection 
in Cambodia?
2. What needs to be done moving forward to build a system?
3. To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform at scale in 
Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short?
4. To what extent is Family Care First maintaining a focus on its overall aim of “catalyzing 
a transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities that address 
its four objectives?
Through these workshops, USAID aims to collaborate with national stakeholders including the 
Royal Government of Cambodia, current FCF network members, development partners, and 
potential future partners to identify the most critical barriers to care reform, solutions, and 
potential financing that could address care reform challenges; and inform future USAID 
investments, though engagement in the workshop does not guarantee USAID funding. Ideas and 
interventions developed through this co-development process will strengthen Cambodia’s child 
and social welfare systems at all levels, promote accountability amongst care reform actors, and 
address the needs of affected populations inclusively (e.g. consider gender, disability, the urban 
and rural poor etc.). The consultative workshops will use a human-centered design approach to 
stimulate solutions that involve the human perspective throughout the problem-solving process.
USAID anticipates that the workshops will result in concrete operational and/or policy decisions 
(e.g. changes to coordination platforms) that USAID, the RGC, and stakeholders could initiate 
and integrate into future strategic planning.
24
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
C.4 WORKSHOP DETAILS AT-A-GLANCE
Duration: 1 day per workshop
Date: February - May 2020
Quantity of workshops: 5
Locations: Battambang, Kandal, Phnom Penh, Siem Reap, Sihanoukville
Facilitation: Expected ratio of 20-25 workshop participants per 1 facilitator; final number to 
be determined once participant list is finalized.
C.5 WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS
Through its role in regulating and guiding care reform, MoSVY would work collaboratively with 
USAID and the contractor to plan the workshops. The workshops will bring together various 
Royal Government of Cambodia provincial and district-level agencies to find avenues for 
collaboration. An illustrative list of anticipated participants includes, but is not limited to: 
behavior change/marketing experts and other communicators; child development specialists;
civil society organizations; corporate actors; donors; faith-based organizations; government 
actors; social entrepreneurs; academic institutions; and social welfare advocates and service 
providers.
C.6 PROPOSED WORKSHOP SESSIONS [to be finalized with the facilitation team]
● Introductions - The purpose of this session is for participants to gain an in-depth 
understanding of the stakeholders in the room. Each person would receive up to five 
minutes to introduce themselves and to describe their (or their organization’s) role within 
the social welfare system. Prior to the workshop USAID would circulate a document that 
provides a brief description (100-150 words) of each organization, agency and/or 
individual participant as a reference for other participants.
● Human-Centered Design - The purpose of this session would be to sensitize participants 
on the human-centered design approach to problem solving. The session will be 
interactive and may include exercises, examples from other country contexts.
● Setting the Stage - This session would focus on discussing the existing situation by 
explaining the child and social welfare systems; reviewing Cambodia’s current child and 
social protection programs; reviewing the achievements of the Care Reform Initiatives 
(FCF|REACT and UNICEF work) to date; presenting data on children’s wellbeing in 
the country, including statistics on children in residential care; and discussing the 
significance of available data. Family Care First, UNICEF and other actors, have 
produced a variety of information about social welfare, child protection and children in 
25
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
need of alternative care that might be used. Make available to participants the UN 
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children and Advancing Protection and Care for
Children in Adversity: A U.S. Government Strategy for International Assistance. Another 
resource is the Guidelines of Basic Competencies for Social Workforce , which was 
recently endorsed by the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation. 
The WHO Nurturing Care Framework for Early Childhood Development and INSPIRE: 
Seven Strategies to End Violence Against Children frameworks may also be useful 
references. This session should include a mix of presentations by experts and group 
discussion to crowd-source additional information about each topic.
● Overview of the collaborative impact model - The purpose of this session would be to 
explain the collaborative impact approach of FCF|REACT to workshop participants. 
While some participants may have engaged in the initial co-creation workshop in 2015 
or may be aware of the model, USAID would like to emphasize this approach and create 
a common understanding amongst all participants in the consultative workshops. 
FCF|REACT, facilitated by Save the Children in Cambodia, aims to create and support 
a platform through which multiple layers of stakeholders across different sectors can 
strategically and collectively work together to significantly increase the number of 
children living in safe, nurturing, family-based care. The five principles upon which this 
collaborative model are based include:
● Common Goal/Objectives: FCF|REACT members have a shared vision for 
change, including a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach 
to solving it through agreed upon actions.
● Continuous Communication: consistent and open communication across 
the FCF|REACT membership to build trust, assure common goal/objectives, 
and create common motivation.
● Co-Creation/Aligned Activities: FCF|REACT members work together to 
design and implement activities in a coordinated way to achieve the common 
goal and objectives.
● Shared Measurement System: data collection and result measurement is done 
consistently across all FCF|REACT partners to ensure that efforts remain aligned 
and contribute to the common goal and objectives.
● Network Facilitation: Save the Children supports and manages the 
collaborative model approach with dedicated staff who coordinate participating 
FCF|REACT members.
These five principles are underpinned by there being adequate initiative capacity to implement 
this work and by the facilitation of a learning culture across the FCF|REACT network.
The final questions and discussion topics will be finalized in consultation between USAID, FCF, 
UNICEF, and the awardee. Topics to be explored during consultative workshops:
26
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
● Topic 1 - Where are things now with the development of a national system of care and 
protection in Cambodia?
● Topic 2 - What needs to be done moving forward to build a system?
● Topic 3 - To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform 
at scale in Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short?
● Topic 4 -To what extent is FCF maintaining a focus on its overall aim of “catalyzing 
a transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities that address 
its four objectives?
Site selection
As part of this Consultation, the contractor must be able to provide services in all five target 
provinces: Phnom Penh, Siem Reap, Battambang, Sihanoukville, and Kandal.
C.7 KEY TEAM COMPOSITION AND REQUIRED EXPERTISE
The team will include the following Key Personnel:
• Lead Facilitator
• Co-Facilitator
Replacement of any Key Personnel requires prior COR concurrence and CO approval. 
Other members will be included in the team as necessary for the implementation of 
the
Statement of Work (SOW). The team must have the following core competencies (each team
member does not have to have all of the competencies but the team as a whole must encompass 
all of these qualifications):
1. Experience (at least five years) in workshop facilitation;
2. Understanding of the Cambodian country and political context as well as development 
challenges;
3. Experience in, and demonstrated knowledge of stakeholder consultations among 
collaborative networks, preferably in the Cambodian context;
4. Experience in, and demonstrated knowledge of engaging a diverse multilingual 
population of Khmer and English speaking participants, preferably in the Cambodian 
context;
5. Strong team management and interpersonal skills; and
6. Strong oral communication, presentation, and writing skills;
7. Fluency in written and spoken Khmer and English.
The Quoter should identify a Team Leader who will be responsible for the core engagement and 
coordination with USAID and partners. The Team Leader will oversee overall team 
coordination, including ensuring that team members adequately understand their roles and 
27
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
responsibilities and assigning individual data/information collection and reporting 
responsibilities.
The proposed team must include local professional(s) with an appropriate mix of expertise 
in relevant sectors as determined by the Quoter. USAID will be closely involved with the 
Stakeholder Consultations and should be considered part of the extended team. In addition 
to reviewing and approving deliverables, USAID will also participate in the Stakeholder 
consultations. Even though USAID personnel will be part of the extended team as observers, 
USAID personnel will not be involved in drafting reports, providing interpretation, and/or 
arranging logistics.
C.8 ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME
the month following the consultation workshops to draft the workshop report, consult with 
the participants and finalize the deliverables.
C.9 ROLE OF THE USAID MISSION
The USAID mission will provide the team with:
• A list of key documents to review;
• A list of key agencies, implementing partners, and donors to be contacted;
• Key documents regarding FCF and USAID’s CDCS Results Framework and current 
programming;
• Review and feedback on the draft analysis report;
• Arrange meetings with USAID staff; and,
• Mission staff (number of staff to be determined) will join the team as an observer 
and may be able to clarify questions that the team may have over the course of the 
consultation workshops).
28
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Annex 2: List of interviewees and workshop participants 
2.1 Key informant interviews (have remove as required by PII rules)
2.2 Workshop participants (have remove as required by PII rules)
a. Battambang 
b. Siem Reap
c. Sihanoukville
d. Phnom Penh and Kandal (have remove as required by PII rules)
d. National level
29
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Annex 3: Workshop program and session plan
CAMBODIA CARE REFORM CONSULTATION WORKSHOP
DATE AND LOCATION
Participants: Members of the Child Protection sector in XXX Province, including members of the 
Family Care First network
Workshop objectives: To gain information in answer to the following key questions:
- Where are things now with the development of a national system of care and protection in 
Cambodia?
- What needs to be done moving forward to build a system?
- To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform at scale in 
Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short?
- To what extent is Family Care First maintaining a focus on its overall aim of “catalyzing a 
transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities that address its four 
objectives?
Timetable: 8.00 – 12 noon, lunch provided at the venue, 2.00 to 5.00
Program:
- Welcome: Opening remarks, overview of the workshop objectives and process
- Introductions
- Refresher and update on human-centred design approach to problem solving
- Overview of the collaborative impact model
- The existing situation, presentations on:
o Key issues in the child welfare and social protection programs
o Achievements of the care reform initiatives
o Data on children’s wellbeing in the country, including children in residential care
Discussion on the information provided
Lunch break
- Consultation on key questions
o Group discussions to gain participants’ perspectives on the four questions in the 
workshop objective
o Presentations by groups
o Plenary discussion and synthesis of outputs
- Summary of day and wrap up
- Closing comments
30
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Workshop session plan
Time Activity Resource needs Comments
8.00 Welcome 
Overview of the workshop objectives and process
Representative in each province
Facilitator
8.10 Introductions
- In each table, the participants introduce themselves: name, organisation, 
position, reason for being in the workshop. Then, a representative 
presents to the plenary. Also if they notice people they have never 
met/worked together before, they should try to talk to during the 
workshop/break. 
8.40 Refresher and update on human-centred design approach to problem solving
- Check in about who in the room has previously attended training or 
workshops on this approach
o If any haven’t, give quick intro to how it works
- Buzz groups to share examples of how participants have used the 
approach in practice and have them identify:
o The most important factor supporting success in their examples
o Any questions they have about the approach
- Brief plenary discussion to share success factors and questions
Presentation 
and discussion
9.15 Overview of USAID’s support to FCF|REACT and 3PC, collaborative action and the 
human-centred design approach to problem solving
Presentation 
and discussion 
10.00 Morning refreshment break
10.15 Setting the stage the existing situation
Presentation of slides prepared by MoSVY
Buzz group discussions with following questions: 
- What did you find most interesting in the information provided?
- Was there anything that surprised you?
- What does this information tell you about how well the system has 
developed and been implemented?
Presentation 
and discussion
31
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
- Any other comments you want to make?
12.00 Lunch break
2.00 Quick icebreaker exercise
2.10 Consultation on key topics 
Participants discuss in their own table.
Introduction to the key topics for consultation: 
1. Where are things now with the development of a national system of care 
and protection in Cambodia? 
2. What needs to be done moving forward to further build and strengthen 
the system? 
3. To what extent is Family Care First contributing to achieving care reform 
at scale in Cambodia? If so, how? If not, where does it fall short? 
4. To what extent is FCF maintaining a focus on its overall aim of “catalyzing 
a transformation of the child care system” as well as supporting activities 
that address its four objectives? 
4.00 Presentations by groups
- Questions of clarification 
- Synthesis of outputs
4.45 Summary of day and wrap up
4.55 Closing comments
32
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Annex 4: Presentations used in the workshops – English versions
33
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
34
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
35
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
36
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
37
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
38
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
39
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
40
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
41
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
42
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
43
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
44
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
45
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Annex 5: List of laws, legal instruments and other relevant documents
A. List of Laws with provisions for child protection and child care 
Law Date
The Civil Code 
2011
The Law on Marriage and Family 
1989
The Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Protection of the 
Victims 2005
The Law on Education 
2007
The Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation 
2008
The Law on Intercountry Adoption 
2009
The Law on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities 2009
The Law on Juvenile Justice 2016
B. Other relevant legal instruments 
Status Title Date
Sub-decree No. 119 on the Management of Residential Care Centre 2015
Sub Decree No. 90 on the Food Regime for Children Living in State 
Institutions 
2015
Sub-decree No.34 on the Transfer of Functions to the Sub National 
Level
2017
Sub Decree No. 184 on the Functions and Structure of District 
Administrations 
2019
Prakas On the Enforcement of the Policy on the Alternative Care 
for Children 
2006
Prakas On the Minimum Standards on Residential Care for 
Children 
2008
Prakas On the Minimum Standards on Alternative Care for 
Children in the Community 
2008
46
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
Prakas*2 On the Procedure to Implement the Policy on the 
Alternative Care of Children 
2011
Prakas Pertaining to the implementation of Cambodia’s Law on 
Intercountry Adoption
1 in 2013, 
3 in 2014
Prakas On the Implementation of the Watsangkahak Komar 
Policy
2018
Instructive 
Circular 
On the Reintegration and Follow up of Victims Staying at 
State Run and NGO Centres 
2007
Decision On the Establishment of National Child Protection 
Commission 
2015
C. Policies, action plans, explanatory notes and guidelines
Authority Document Date
RGC National Social Protection Policy Framework 2016-2025 2017
Inter-ministerial 
Steering 
Committee on 
VAW and VAC
Cambodia Action Plan to Prevent and Respond to Violence 
Against Children 2017-2021 (English) 
2017
MoEYS Policy on Child Protection in Schools 
 
2016
MoH, MoWA Minimum Standards for Basic Counseling for Women and 
Girl Survivors of Gender Based Violence 
2016
MoI Manual on Commune/Sangkat Social Service 
Implementation 
2018
MoJ and MoSVY Juvenile Justice Law Strategic and Operational Plan 2018-2020 2019
MoSVY Policy on Alternative Care for Children 2006
MoSVY Minimum Standards on Alternative Care for Children in 
Cambodia
2008
MoSVY Procedures to Implement the Policy on Alternative Care for 
Children 
2011
MoSVY Guidelines and Tools for Implementing Prakas on 
Procedures to Implement the Alternative Care Policy for 
Children 
2013
MoSVY Action plan for improving childcare: With the target of safely 
returning 30 percent of children in residential care to their 
families 2016-2018
2017
MoSVY Handbook Roles and Responsibilities of CCWC to 
implement the Action plan on reintegration 
2017
MoSVY Action Plan for Improving Child Care January, 2017
MoSVY Capacity development plan for family support, foster care and 
adoption in Cambodia 2018 - 2023
2018
2 A Prakas is a Ministerial Proclamation
47
Cambodia Care Reform Consultations 2020
MoSVY Guidelines on Basic Competencies for the Social Workforce 
in Cambodia
2019
MoSVY, 
UNICEF
Practice Sheet for Child Protection 
MoWA Guidelines for the Legal Protection of Women and Children’s 
Rights in Cambodia
2014