Alternative Care Mechanisms in Jharkhand: Analysing the Implementation Barriers; Its Potential to Prevent Family Separation and Strengthening Family-based Care of Vulnerable Children in Jharkhand

Abstract

The required operational framework of a community-based care mechanism as envisaged under the Revised Integrated Child Protection Scheme and the National Plan of Action for Children 2016, fails to both prevent and effectively respond to the vulnerabilities of children in need of care and protection. Resonance of such unplanned community programming shifts the focus towards institutionalisation of children, thus grossly violating ‘institutionalization as a measure of last resort’, one of the fundamental principles governing the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015. The act critically justifies the need to empower vulnerable families to care for children and re-emphasises the preventive role in ensuring family-based care or keep children in alternative care setting. The alternative care (sponsorship and foster care) guidelines in Jharkhand was launched in 2018. Since then, it has been found that the state is struggling to implement it. Though there has been some progress in the sponsorship scheme implementation, the kinship and foster care remains completely neglected. Child in Need Institute (CINI) is partnering with Hope & Homes for Children (HHC) since 2017 for pushing the agenda for deinstitutionalisation of children through a two-pronged approach of model creation and district-level technical support to the ICPS system. Working closely with communities in preventing family separation, led to the understanding that there is a huge need to address the structural gaps for implementing the alternative care guidelines in true spirit. The purpose of the article is to do a systematic analysis of the implementation of the alternative care guidelines in the state and map out the implementation bottlenecks/barriers (systemic, structural and operational), hindering its smooth implementation. Besides that, the article will also try to establish a causal linkage between implementation of alternative care guidelines and dependency on institutional care, thus reflecting the potential of such mechanisms in promoting deinstitutionalisation. The research methodology will be a mix of qualitative and quantitative tools. Tools like content analysis of the key informants’ interviews and case studies will be used to understand the implementation barriers. A quantitative analysis of the secondary data on sponsorship scheme implementation will be done to analyse the gaps. Besides that, the experiences of children and their parents who have been linked with alternative care will also be analysed. District stakeholder consultations in 2 districts will be done to enlist the recommendations for the state. Thus, the key research question that would guide this article are: (a) What are the barriers to implementation of the alternative care program in its current form? and (b) What are the changes that should be made in the guidelines and its implementation process? The article will thus be an advocacy tool for influencing the state government for enhanced priority and investments in alternative care program and reduced focus on institutional care.