Situational Analysis of Children without Parental Care in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Implementation of the Policy for the Protection of Children without Parental Care and Families at Risk of Separation in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina 2006-2016

December 2010.

1 Publisher: Ministry of Labor and Social Policy of FBiH Production: Jordan STUDIO Circulation: 100 The opinions, fi ndings, analysis and conclusions expressed within this situation analysis are entirely those of the authors and should not be attributed in any manner to the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), to its affi liated organisations, or to the members of its Executive Directors or the countries they represent.

2 Contents

Foreword, UNICEF ...... 4 Foreword, Ministry of Labour and Social Aff airs of the Federation of BiH ...... 5 Executive Summary ...... 7 1. Introduction ...... 9 2. Goals of the Study ...... 10 3. Methodology ...... 11 3.1 Participants of the Study ...... 11 3.2 Instruments ...... 15 3.3 The Process ...... 16 4. Results ...... 17 4.1 Records of Children Without Parental Care ...... 18 4.2 Children Separated from their Biological Parents ...... 20 4.3 Children Placed in Institutions ...... 22 4.4 Family Support Services ...... 24 4.5 Budget for Child Protection ...... 27 4.6 Adopted Children ...... 30 4.7 Foster Care ...... 31 4.8 Prioritizing placement of children into families...... 34 4.9 Duration of the Placement ...... 35 4.10 Children’s Contact with their Biological Families ...... 36 4.11 Needs Analysis and Care Plans for Children ...... 37 4.12 Support in becoming Independent ...... 38

4.13 Progress of Children in terms of their Psycho-physical Development, Gaining Skills and Knowledge and Building Relations with Family and Community ...... 39 5. Existing Interventions in the Priority Areas of the Policy ...... 40

5.1 Monitoring Benefi ciaries within the System for the Legal and Social Protection of Children and Families ...... 40 5.2 Family Support Services ...... 42 5.3 Foster Families as a Form of Care ...... 43 5.4 Alternative Forms of Care ...... 44 6. Children without Parental Care: Situation up until the end of 2009 ...... 48

7. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 51

3 Foreword, UNICEF

The situation of children without their primary caregivers has been of growing concern in recent years, as it triggers violations of children rights as enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other international human rights instruments. In light of this, UNICEF supports countries in their eff orts to ensure the realisation of the core principles of the CRC: non-discrimination, the right to life, survival and development; the right of the child to be heard, the best interests of the child and, in general, children’s right to live in a dignifi ed manner. These principles must be seen as the cornerstone of every activity and intervention that states undertake when it comes to protecting the rights of children who lack parental care.

The CRC sets an overall framework for the consideration of the reality of children living without their primary caregivers. It acknowledges that the family is the natural environment for the development and well-being of children, that parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing of their child and that the child has, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. At the same time, it foresees the appropriate use of substitute care in cases where children are deprived of their family environment or if it is in their best interests not to be allowed to remain in that environment and in such a situation. The CRC also anticipates recourse to institutional placement as a measure of last resort.

The rights of the child are to be eff ectively safeguarded in all cases and certainly when children are placed in institutions. These include the right to protection from discrimination, neglect and exploitation; the right to develop his or her personality, talents and abilities to their fullest potential and the right to have a say in decisions that aff ect their life, including those related to the conditions of placement. Above all, it is critical to ensure that institutional placement only occurs if and when it is in the best interests of the child and that there is periodic assessment and review of the decision and circumstances relevant to the child’s placement.

Through this approach, the Convention provides support for a well-prepared and planned process of developing alternatives to institutionalisation for as many children as possible, a process that is in itself fully respectful of children’s rights and their best interests.

This situation analysis was conducted in order to assess the implementation of the “Policy for the Protection of Children without Parental Care and Families at Risk of Separation in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2006-2016”. It highlights the progress and gaps as well as further eff orts that need to be undertaken in order to implement the policy. The report also suggests the adoption of a well defi ned action plan to be followed by corresponding practical changes in order to make a diff erence to the lives of vulnerable children.

Florence Bauer

UNICEF Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina

“UNICEF works to support the capacities of parents and legal guardians as those with rights, duties and primary responsibility for the child, and promotes the role of families as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth, well-being and happiness of children. UNICEF also pays particular attention to the circumstances of children who lack parental care” (UNICEF Guiding Principles – UNICEF Medium-term Strategic Plan 2006-2009 extended to 2013)

4 Foreword, Ministry of Labour and Social Aff airs of the Federation of BiH

Introduction to the Situational Analysis of the Protection of Children without Parental Care in the Federation of BiH and the Implementation of the Document on Policy to Protect Children without Parental Care and Families at risk of Separation in the Federation of BiH 2006-2016.

We should start with several provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:

- Quality of life:

Children have the righ t to a quality life, which allows complete development. The state is obliged to provide economic help to parents that are unable to provide suffi cient quality of life for their children.

- Children’s benefi t

Private and governmental agencies have to put children’s interests fi rst at every opportunity.

- State responsibility Children have the rights to their culture, economic security and social protection. These rights are guaranteed by the state. The state is responsible for the implementation of all international treaties on children’s rights to protection. All states are obliged to cooperate in order to improve children’s rights.

- Children without parents Children without parents have the right to be adopted, placed in children’s homes or with families: foster families.

- Adoption The interests and needs of the child are primary in relation to adoption. Adoption has to be conducted under the supervision of the appropriate government agency.

When we look at some of the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child we can conclude that many of them are either broken or not enforced. Child welfare should be a priority and should not be subject to external constraints or social changes. It is pre-supposed that it is the responsibility of society to show concern for children and families, especially those families at risk of separation. If the family, as the primary social community, cannot provide support care and understanding for a child then society is obliged to provide the necessary care and protection for children and families.

The Document on the Policy of Protection of Children without Parental Care and Families at risk of Separation in the Federation of BiH 2006-2016 was adopted at the 44th Session of the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held on 31 January 2008. The purpose of the Policy is to develop a system of child protection that has the capacity to respond optimally to the need of children to live with their biological family as well as the need of children already separated from their parents to obtain such protection, when in compliance with the best interests of an individual child.

The main goal of this research was to examine whether and how the implementation of the Policy started, whether and how the activities of this Policy are being carried out, provided for in the short and medium term as well as what results have been achieved. Another goal of this research was to establish a system to monitor the process of Policy implementation, which implies that the methodology designed in this or anther advanced form can be used to monitor the implementation of policies for the entire period and designed to reform the entire system of social protection for children and families.

5 This survey covered all of the ministries of social protection within the FBiH as the bearers of responsibility for the implementation of the Policy, namely the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the FBiH and all relevant cantonal ministries. Other participants in this research were the centres for social work/social welfare services in the FBiH, which are important actors in the implementation of the Policy.

The majority of institutions that care for children without parental care as well as institutions that provide services based on the family model of care also participated in this research.

The survey was conducted from October 2009 up until May 2010. This period included preparatory activities, data collection, fi eld visits to institutions, registration of children into the database and fi nally data processing and report writing. Results and conclusions

- Only 27 centres for Social work/social welfare services (less than half) reported that they were familiar with the Policy, while 14 of them have undertaken activities in accordance with the Document.

- This study has shown that generally there have been no changes: no movement in maintaining records for children without parental care or on families at risk of separation. Nor did it note a continuous decrease in the number of children who are separated from their biological families over the period from 2005 until the end of 2009. Nor was it able to record a reduction in the number of children placed in institutions caring for children up until 2009.

- The study shows a signifi cantly higher number of adopted children than was expected based on previously known information. However, it also shows that some children placed at an early age welcomed their adulthood whilst still in institutions or with foster families.

- The research has also shown that the existing system for recording the contact between children without parental care and their biological family and relatives is ineffi cient.

- It turned out that no individual plans had been made for approximately 70% of children who were within the system of public care at the end of 2009.

- One of the indicators defi ned by the Policy is a proportional increase in the number of children under protection whose results in terms of physical and mental development, acquired skills, knowledge and relationships with their families and communities are better than those achieved in previous years.

There have been certain weaknesses in the collection of data for the analysis, such as the data itself collected in the fi eld, a lack of resources and legislation in this area, certain defi ciencies in terms of institutional capacities and professional skills and also a lack of the presence and involvement of NGOs in this fi eld. However, all the shortcomings in this analysis do not diminish its value as it has established the real situation within this fi eld in the Federation. Together with the Document it represents a good basis for the realisation of the anticipated short, medium and long term actions aimed at the protection of children without parental care.

M.sc. Asim Zečević

Assistant Minister of the Ministry of Labour and Social Aff airs of the Federation of BiH

6 Executive Summary

The governments that have ratifi ed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have certain binding obligations, including direct primary responsibility for children deprived of family care. These obligations also extend to others in society whose actions can make a diff erence in the realisation of child rights. In the case of children deprived of family care, these obligations include:

- preventing children from being deprived of family care in the fi rst place by fi ghting discrimination and by supporting appropriate family services;

- using institutional care only as a last resort and as a temporary response;

- developing, fi nancing, implementing and monitoring alternative systems of care based on the principles of providing children with a family environment;

- regulating and monitoring any remaining institutions for children in public care in line with agreed international and national standards and the Convention on the Rights of the Child;

- in all actions refl ect the voice of youth and ensure the participation of children and aff ected families.

Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of the CRC and therefore legally bound and ultimately responsible for the achievement of children’s rights within its territory.

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted the Policy for the Protection of Children without Parental Care and Families at Risk of Separation in the FBiH for 2006-2016 in conformity with the country’s legal obligations deriving from the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international and European human rights instruments in 2008. The policy aims to develop a child protection system capable of protecting the right of children to live with their biological families as well as ensuring that for cases where living with the biological family is not an option those children separated from their families will have their rights fulfi lled respected and protected, as enshrined by the CRC. The policy envisages an in-depth reform of the child and family protection system through (a) monitoring benefi ciaries of the children and family social protection system, (b) developing family support services, (c) developing and strengthening family-based care for children without parental care and (d) transforming institutional childcare.

This report explores whether and to what extent the Policy has been implemented since its adoption and what results have been achieved. The study of the implementation of the policy was conducted by Hope and Homes for Children BiH and supported by UNICEF and the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the Federation of BiH. A set of indicators defi ned in the policy itself was used to monitor the progress of the results. Various stakeholders took part in the study, such as the relevant ministries, centres for social work, institutions where children without parental care are placed, non-government organisations active in the fi eld of child protection, associations of foster parent and young adults leaving care.

Whilst highlighting individual eff orts and commitment as well as sporadic successes, the report identifi es the lack of a systematic approach as one of the main reasons for the struggle to implement the policy. Although foreseen in the policy, an action plan that would have provided direct guidelines for policy implementation has not been created. At the same time, the budget to support prevention programmes and the development of alternative forms of care was not allocated, while the bodies that were supposed to carry out the child protection reform were not created.

The study further shows that only 27 centres for Social Work/Social Protection Departments (less than half) were familiar with the policy, while only 14 had undertaken some of the activities envisaged by the Document. Only fi ve centres for social work stated that they had received recommendations from their cantonal ministries to use the policy in their everyday work.

7 The consequences of this lack of awareness concerning the policy and an almost complete lack of its implementation are shown below.

zOut of over 1,200 children deprived of parental care in the FBiH in 2009 around 800 of them are being cared for by institutions. There are currently 14 institutions for the placement of children deprived of parental care in the FBiH, out of which 5 are classifi ed as large (capacity of 100 or more children).

zThere is still a tendency to place younger children in institutions: at the end of 2009 most of these children under 3 were institutionalised.

zBudgets for deinstitutionalisation and alternative services do not exist.

zNo systematic eff orts have been made to promote and further develop alternatives to institutional care, such as fostering or adoption.

zNo proper statistical data concerning children without parental care exists.

zThere has been no continuous decrease in the number of children separated from their biological families over the period 2005-2009.

To address the above issues the study defi nes a comprehensive list of conclusions and recommendations whose ultimate purpose is to revive the implementation of the policy over the forthcoming period. Most urgently, these include the setting up of policy implementation coordination bodies, the creation of action and monitoring plans, the allocation of budgets and the creation of a functional database for monitoring children and families within the protection system. A concentrated and coordinated eff ort will be required on the part of all stakeholders involved in order to achieve this with particular focus on the entity and cantonal governments.

As mentioned above, the right of a child to live in a family environment is guaranteed by the CRC and Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of this international treaty. The Convention, the Policy for the Protection of Children without Parental Care and Families at Risk of Separation in the FBiH of BiH 2006-2016 and current legislation obliges Bosnia and Herzegovina and its authorities, at all levels, to ensure the conditions for a decent life and the optimal development of each child in a family environment.

8 1. Introduction

At its 44th session, held on 31 January 2008, the Government of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (FBiH) adopted the Policy for the Protection of Children without Parental Care and Families at Risk of Separation in the FBiH for 2006-20161 (hereinafter referred to as the Policy). As stated in its introductory note, the initiative for drafting this Policy came from the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the FBiH, the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of Republika Srpska (RS), UNICEF and Save the Children UK as well as many social protection experts from Bosnia and Herzegovina who were involved in its development. The Policy incorporates existing activities and experiences from Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as theoretical and practical knowhow from other countries. It is in conformity with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which Bosnia and Herzegovina is part.2

Proceeding from the purpose and principles set forth by the Policy and relying upon the principles enshrined under the CRC the main objective and four strategic goals were defi ned. They are to be achieved through a number of activities in the following four priority areas:

zmonitoring the benefi ciaries of the children and family social protection system;

zdevelopment of family-support services;

zdeveloping and strengthening of family-based care for children without parental care;

ztransformation of institutional childcare.

The Policy anticipates that the full implementation of the children and family social protection system reform will take ten years (from 2006 to 2016), while improvement of the status of most children without parental care and children at risk of separation will be enabled in the short-term during the fi rst two years and ranging from year three to year six in the mid-term. It is expected that the positive eff ects of the Policy will reach all aff ected children. The key bearers of the reform will be the Coordination Body at the FBiH level and Expert Groups and Planning and Action Groups in the regions/cantons.

1 Based on the Policy that was originally designed for the entire territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska developed the Strategy for the Improvement of Social Protection of Children Without Parental Care and an accompanying action plan for the period from 2009 to 2014, which was adopted by the Government of Republika Srpska during its 139th session held on 3 September 2009. 2 The former Yugoslavia previously ratifi ed the CRC on 3 January 1991. Subsequent to its dissolution, the Government of Bosnia and Her- zegovina deposited notifi cation of succession with the Secretary-General, with eff ect as of 6 March 1992. Additionally, the Convention is mentioned in the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina under Annex I: Additional Human Rights Agreements to be Applied in Bosnia and Herzegovina. 9 2. Goals of the Study

The main goal of this Study is to explore whether and if so how the Policy’s implementation has begun, whether and how the short and mid-term activities have been implemented and what results have been achieved. The result indicators, defi ned by the Policy itself, pertain to the following:

zincreased number of family support services and the number of benefi ciaries of these services (children and families); zdivision of the budget for child protection into two parts: the section that will support preventive work with families and the section that will support care for those children who are already in the public care system; zincreased number of children being adopted; introduction of various types of foster care and an increase in the number of children placed with foster  families; zpriority placement of institutionalised children with foster families and their return to their original families, whilst providing support to those families; zreduction in the time children spend in institutions and or with foster families; zproportional increase in the number of children who have established and maintained contact with their biological families; zanalysis of the needs and preparation, and regular update of individual protection plans for all such children; zproportional increase in the number of children who receive support in their eff orts to become independent and fi nd employment after they leave an institution; zproportional increase in the number of children under protection whose psycho-physical development, acquired skills, knowledge and relations with family and community have improved in comparison to previous years.3

Another goal of this Study is to establish a system for monitoring implementation of the Policy.

These goals will be met through the development of a situational analysis of the protection of children without parental care covering the period 2005-2009. When establishing the continuity of monitoring for children without parental care the fact that the last situational analysis was fi nalised in 20054 will be taken into account. The changes that may have occurred since 2005 will be identifi ed and taken into consideration within the methodology for monitoring and the envisaged changes resulting from the Policy will be piloted.

3 The result indicator will not be covered by this analysis. In order to asses mental and physical development, acquired skills, knowledge and children’s relations with their family and community it is necessary to design and/or compile adequate psychological instruments to be used as a standard set of tools for assessing the results in this fi eld. 4 The situational analysis of children without parental care in Bosnia and Herzegovina was prepared at the initiative of Save the Children UK and UNICEF in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the FBiH and the Ministry of Health and Social Protection of RS. The analysis is one of the preparatory activities of the Policy.

10 3. Methodology 3.1 Participants of the Study

The Study covered all social protection ministries within the FBiH, as bearers of responsibility for Policy implementation.

zMinistry of Labour and Social Policy of the FBiH zMinistry of Health and Social Policy of the Una-Sana Canton zMinistry of Health, Labour and Social Policy of the Posavina Canton zMinistry of Labour and Social Policy of the Tuzla Canton zMinistry of Labour, Social Policy and Refugees of the Zenica-Doboj Canton zMinistry of Social Policy, Health, Displaced Persons and Refugees of the Bosnian Podrinje Canton zMinistry of Health and Social Policy of the Central Bosnia Canton zMinistry of Labour and Social Policy of the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton zMinistry of Health, Labour and Social Welfare of the West Herzegovina Canton zMinistry of Labour, Social Policy, Displaced Persons and Refugees of the Sarajevo Canton zMinistry of Labour, Health, Social Welfare and Refugees of Canton 10

Besides the above mentioned ministries, most centres for social work/social protection services in the FBiH took part in the study as important actors in the Policy implementation (see table 3.1.1).

Most institutions for the alternative care of children without parental care, including both large institutions5 and those that off er family-based care6, took part in the study. In addition, the instruments for gathering information were forwarded to those institutions that specialise in the provision of accommodation, upbringing, education and rehabilitation for certain categories of children and or adults, because available information suggests that a certain number of children without parental care reside in these institutions. Table 3.1.2 contains a list of all institutions to which the instruments were sent.

5 As stated in the Policy, the standards set out by European countries state that an institution is considered as large if it can accommodate more than 12 children. 6 This analysis considers the “Selo Mira” Children’s Village, SOS Children’s Villages and Social-pedagogical Life Communities as institutions off ering a family-based care model. These institutions are organised in such way that they simulate life in a family. Children are placed into small residential units (houses mostly) gathered in one location and their capacity is up to 12 children. Children are taken care of by “moth- ers” – staff which are educated to care for children; however, their role is similar to a parental one (they live with children and fulfi l daily chores such as cooking, cleaning, helping children maintain hygiene, fi nishing homework etc). 11 Table 3.1.1: Centres for social work/social protection services in the FBiH to which the instruments have been submitted

UNA-SANA CANTON CENTRAL BOSNIA CANTON Centre for Social Work in Bihać Centre for Social Work in Bugojno Centre for Social Work in Bosanska Krupa Centre for Social Work in Busovača Centre for Social Work in Bosanski Petrovac Centre for Social Work in Donji Vakuf Centre for Social Work in Bužim Centre for Social Work in Gornji Vakuf-Uskoplje Centre for Social Work in Cazin Centre for Social Work in Jajce Centre for Social Work in Ključ Centre for Social Work in Travnik Centre for Social Work in Sanski Most Centre for Social Work in Novi Travnik Centre for Social Work in Velika Kladuša Centre for Social Work in Vitez Economic Revival, Social Welfare and Refugees POSAVINA CANTON Service in Kreševo Centre for Social Work in Domaljevac-Šamac Service for General Administration and other Centre for Social Work in Odžak Activities and Social Policy in Fojnica Centre for Social Work in Orašje General Administration, Economy, Social Work and Finance Service in Dobretići* TUZLA CANTON Social Welfare Service in Kiseljak Centre for Social Work in Banovići Centre for Social Work in Gračanica HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA CANTON Centre for Social Work in Gradačac Centre for Social Work in Čapljina Centre for Social Work in Kalesija* Centre for Social Work in Čitluk Centre for Social Work in Kladanj Centre for Social Work in Mostar City Centre for Social Work in Teočak Centre for Social Work in Jablanica Centre for Social Work in Lukavac Centre for Social Work in Konjic Centre for Social Work in Srebrenik Centre for Social Work in Prozor-Rama Centre for Social Work in Tuzla Centre for Social Work in Stolac Department for Social Policy and War Veterans in Centre for Social Work in Sapna Neum**

Centre for Social Work in Živinice* Social Welfare Service Ravno***

ZENICA-DOBOJ CANTON WEST HERZEGOVINA CANTON Centre for Social Work in Breza Centre for Social Work in Ljubuški Centre for Social Work in Kakanj Centre for Social Work in Posušje* Centre for Social Work in Maglaj Centre for Social Work in Široki Brijeg Centre for Social Work in Tešanj Social Welfare and Family Service in Grude Centre for Social Work in Zavidovići Centre for Social Work in Zenica SARAJEVO CANTON**** Centre for Social Work in Visoko Cantonal Centre for Social Work in Sarajevo Centre for Social Work in Vareš Social Protection Service in Centar

12 Centre for Social Work in Olovo Social Protection Service in Hadžići Centre for Social Work in Usora Social Protection Service in Ilidža Labour, Social Welfare and Displaced Persons Social Protection Service in Ilijaš Service in Žepþe Social Protection Service in Novi Grad Social Work and General Administration Social Protection Service in Novo Sarajevo Service in Doboj-jug (South) Social Protection Service in Stari Grad Social Protection Service in Vogošüa BOSNIAN PODRINJE CANTON Cantonal Centre for Social Work in Goražde CANTON 10 Social Protection Service in Foþa-Ustikolina Centre for Social Work in Bosansko Grahovo Social Protection Service in Pale-Praþa Centre for Social Work in Glamoþ Centre for Social Work in Kupres Centre for Social Work in Livno Centre for Social Work in Tomislavgrad Social Welfare Sector in Drvar**

* The required information was not submitted ** A written notifi cation was submitted stating that no children without parental care were registered in the municipality *** Oral information provided, stating that no children without parental care were registered in the municipality **** Partial information submitted

13 Table 3.1.2: Institutions for the alternative care of children without parental care and other institutions that provide accommodation for children without parental care in the FBiH to which the instruments were submitted

UNA-SANA CANTON

“Duga”: Centre for Children without Parental Care, Kulen Vakuf Social-Pedagogical Life Communities, Bihać

TUZLA CANTON

“Duga“”: Residential Centre for Children without Parental Care, Gradačac “Selo Mira”: Children’s Village, Turija* Residential Facility for Children without Parental Care, Tuzla SOS - Children’s Village, Gračanica Facility for the Upbringing and Education of People with Diffi culties in Mental and Physical Development, Tuzla

ZENICA-DOBOJ CANTON

Dom-porodica, Zenica “Duje”: Reception Centre, Doboj Istok (East)* “Mala Škola”: Facility for the Reception and Upbringing of Children, Vareš

CENTRAL BOSNIA CANTON

“Duga”: Centre for Children and Young People with Diffi culties in Development, Novi Travnik “Drin”: Residential Facility for People with Mental Disability, Fojnica

HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA CANTON

“Mostar”: Resi dential Facility for Children, Mostar “Papa Ivan Pavao II”: Family Centre, Čitluk* “Majčino Selo”: Facility for Pre-school Upbringing and Social Welfare, Međugorje

SARAJEVO CANTON

Centre for Blind and Visually Impaired Children and Young People, Sarajevo Centre for Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation, Sarajevo* “Al Walidein”: Residential Facility for Children, Sarajevo “Egipat”: Residential Facility for Children, Sarajevo Residential Facility for Children without Parental Care, Sarajevo* SOS - Children’s Village, Sarajevo7 Facility for the Special Education and Upbringing of Children, Sarajevo* Facility for the Upbringing of Male Children and Young People, Sarajevo Facility for Mentally Disabled Children and Young People, Pazarić

* The requested information was not submitted

Numerous non-governmental organisations and associations that off er systemic services for children without parental care and families at risk of being separated and that implement projects and activities that contribute to the achievement of increased qualitative childcare have contributed to the implementation of the Policy. Table 3.1.3 contains a list of the NGOs and associations that participated in this study.

7 Up until May 2010, the organisation used the name SOS Kinderdorf International

14 Table 3.1.3: NGOs and associations in the FBiH that took part in the study

ZENICA-DOBOJ CANTON “Medica”, Zenica SARAJEVO CANTON

The “Krila Nade” (Wings of Hope) Foundation Hope and Homes for Children in BiH “Svjetlo”: NGO of Altruists for the Support of People with Reduced Capabilities “Sumero”: an association of Organisations for the Support of Persons with Intellectual Diffi culties in the FBiH SOS - Children’s Village in Bosnia and Herzegovina The association “Duga” “Perspektiva”: an association of Foster Parents in Sarajevo Canton The association “Education Builds Bosnia and Herzegovina” “Oaza”: an association of Parents and Friends for the Support of Mentally Retarded People in Sarajevo Canton

By sharing their experiences the individuals listed below have made a signifi cant contribution to the review of the status of children without parental care:

z16 children (aged 15 to 18) without parental care from the residential facility for Children without Parental Care in Tuzla, Dom-porodica in Zenica and the Residential Facility for Children in Mostar who will leave institutions once they turn 18 years of age or complete main stream education;

z6 youths who during the period between 2005 and 2009 left the institutions Home-family in Zenica and the Residential Facility for Children in Mostar after having turned 18;

z16 foster parents from the Tuzla, Zenica-Doboj, Herzegovina-Neretva and Sarajevo cantons.

3.2 Instruments

The instruments which can be used, in the same or advanced form, for monitoring Policy implementation during the course of the planned period have been developed for the needs of this study.

zGeneral questionnaire for the Centres for social work/social protection services was used for collecting general data on the aforementioned institutions pertaining to the organisation of their work, personnel, strengthening their institutional capacities and specifi c activities undertaken as part of the Policy implementation.

zQuestionnaire for Centres for social work/social protection services for the collection of data on children without parental care was used to collect detailed information on children without parental care covering the period 2005 to 2009.

zGeneral questionnaire for residential institutions for children without parental care was used to collect general data on the institutions that off er the organised placement of children without parental care, such as orphanages and children’s villages as well as other institutions that accommodate children without parental care. The data includes information on the organisation of work, personnel, strengthening of institutions’ capacities and specifi c activities undertaken as part of the Policy implementation.

15 zQuestionnaire for residential institutions for children without parental care was aimed at the collection of data on children without parental care and was used to collect detailed information on children without parental care who were placed in or had stayed in such institutions during the period 2005 to 2009.

zQuestionnaire for governmental and non-governmental organisations, which are not legal guardian bodies or childcare institutions, dealt with the social protection of children without parental care and families at risk of separation.

zIn regard to the lists of questions for interviews with the representatives of ministries, foster parents and young adults leaving the child protection system. 3.3 The Process

The study was conducted between October 2009 and May 2010. After careful planning and a preparatory phase numerous activities were conducted (e.g., the collection of data and fi eld visits to institutions) and fi nalised through written reports.

The questionnaires were delivered to all relevant institutions and organisations and upon receipt of the completed questionnaires teams of experts contacted some of the institutions in order to obtain additional information; they also visited 54 institutions in order to discuss in more detail the data that certain institutions either submitted or should have submitted. Structured interviews were conducted with ministries, foster parents and young people who were either about to leave or had recently left the child protection system. Permission was requested from the legal guardian bodies in order to interview institutionalised young people who were still minors.

Throughout the course of the collection processing and storage of data the principle of confi dentiality was respected. This is of extreme importance considering the fact that the data obtained from the centres for social work/social protection services and institutions for children without parental care contains the names of children. The collected data was used solely for the purposes of this analysis. Upon completion of the analysis the data was handed over to the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy of the FBiH.

16 4. Results Policy Implementation Activities

Although the planned period for implementation of the Policy was between 2006 and 2016 the Government of the FBiH only adopted it in January 2008. The Policy was not followed by an action plan which would have determined direct guidelines, the budget was not allocated as agreed in the Policy and the bodies in charge of the implementation were not formed. The successful implementation of some of the activities foreseen by the Policy can be attributed to the personal eff orts of exceptional individuals.

The Policy envisaged that the key bearers of the reform would be the Coordination Body at the level of the FBiH, the Expert Groups and the Planning and Action Groups in the regions/cantons. As the Coordination Body has yet to be established, the short-term (covering the fi rst two years) activities for which the Coordination Body was supposed to be responsible have yet to begin.

zStart solving the inter-sectoral issues, including the long-term fi nancing of the transitional social welfare sector.

zInitiation of the legal framework for reform.

zMonitoring planning and action at the cantonal level.

zAdoption of the action plan for the transformation of the institutions for alternative care of children without parental care.

zEstablishment of four expert groups and the required number of planning and action groups in the regions/cantons.

The Policy indicates that the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy is fully responsible for its implementation and for the coordination of the activities; however, attempts should be made to mobilise donor resources for costs related to the implementation. The Federal Ministry together with the cantonal line ministries fully support the Policy, yet claim that there is inadequate funding for its implementation. It is envisioned that due to the current fi nancial crisis it will be impossible to secure the necessary funding and therefore the ministries seek a solution through various international organisations, specifi cally UNICEF. UNICEF is recognised as a key partner for all potential activities related to the implementation of the Policy.

Despite the fact that the study was carried out three and a half years after the creation of the Policy (in 2006) and nearly two years after its adoption (in 2008), it appears that personnel in only 27 of the centres for social work/ social protection services (less than half) are familiar with the Policy and that only 14 centres conduct activities in line with the document. Only fi ve centres (from diff erent cantons) confi rmed that they had received the guidelines following the adoption of the Policy. Result Indicators

The study covered 2,127 children registered as children without parental care in the FBiH during the period from 2005 to 200987. A database that included all children without parental care within the FBiH who were covered by the study over the referenced period was created; however, the database is incomplete as seven centres for social work/social

8 Besides these children, 75 children coming from outside of the FBiH, including 42 from Republika Srpska and 33 from Brčko District, were accommodated in institutions in the FBiH from 2005 to 2009. 17 protection services and seven institutions for children without parental care failed to provide the required data, as indicated in tables 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. The database does not include those children who were not registered by the centres for social work/social protection services and child care institutions. Therefore, the statistical data does not include children without parental care from the municipalities of Kalesija, Živinice, Dobretići, Neum, Posušje and Drvar as well as Sarajevo Canton who lived in the below listed institutions.

z “Selo Mira” Children’s Village (Turija) z“Duga” Residential Centre for Children without Parental Care (Gradačac) z “Duje” Reception Centre (Doboj East) z“Papa Ivan Pavao II” Family Centre (Čitluk) zCentre for Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation (Sarajevo) zResidential Facility for Children without Parental Care (Sarajevo) zFacility for Special Education and Upbringing of Children (Sarajevo)

In addition, the data does not include children from the aforementioned municipalities who are/were placed in substitute families (kinship/non-relative foster families and adoptive families) or children who are/were placed in an institution in Republika Srpska. 4.1 Records of Children Without Parental Care

The existence of prop er records for children without parental care is one of the result indicators set forth under the Policy.

Available data suggest that 2,741 children in (Policy) were deprived of parental care in 2005: 2,062 of them lived in the FBiH. However, it is believed that the actual number is higher as the data cannot be considered accurate for diff erent reasons: the lack of an effi cient system for maintaining adequate databases and the failure of institutions for children without parental care to submit data regarding these children.

Visits to centres for social work/social protection services demonstrated that some of these institutions kept their records in such a way that enables the simple collection of all necessary data concerning children without parental care. It was noted that a database for the centres for social work in Tuzla Canton was under construction, yet it appears that during the course of the study adequate and timely progress was not made in relation to the keeping of proper records for children without parental care. Many participants in the study declared that they had encountered diffi culties when gathering the necessary data on children, which resulted in several changes in deadlines for the submission of the completed questionnaires.

During numerous visits to the centres for social work/social protection and institutions hosting children without parental care it appeared that a systematic approach to record keeping was lacking. Information on children was kept in diff erent ways by the diff erent centres and it does not appear that a harmonised system is in place yet98.

A signifi cant number of children were not registered during the fi rst round of data collection. Some children were registered by institutions for children without parental care, but not by the responsible centres for social work/ social protection services and occasionally vice versa. The number of non-registered children was reduced by cross- referencing the lists submitted by the institutions and the centres for social work/social protection services.

9 Information concerning a child was to be found in diff erent locations: in closets, other offi ces, archives or notebooks. In one of the centres for social work it was noted that case archives were packed into boxes that were then placed in the manager’s offi ce without any order. Employees at another centre took the documentation to their homes because the centre’s premises had been ransacked on several occa- sions. Due to a lack of funds no security measures have been introduced and consequently numerous defi ciencies and discrepancies were noted during the course of data collection compiling and analysis.

18 Besides the fact that a certain number of children were not registered, it was remarked that the following information was often missing:

zaccurate date of birth; zaccurate date of placement in an institution/other family; zdetails on individual child protection plans; zamount of contact between the child and his/her relatives.

In addition, many discrepancies between the information submitted by the centres for social work/social protection services and child care institutions showed ineffi cient monitoring of children within the social protection system. The discrepancies most frequently related to:

zaccurate date of birth; z date of placement in an institution; zchildcare institutions.

Some centres for social work/social protection services lacked background information on some children, such as their date of birth, and kept incorrect records pertaining to certain children’s place of residence for long periods of time and thus in some cases the data refl ected a variance of several years.

It was possible to identify the aforementioned errors due to the data collection model utilised by the centres for social work/social protection services and child care institutions. However, the quality of data collected from a single source, be it from the centres for social work/social protection services or child care institutions, remains questionable as it was not possible to compare the data and thus identify any potential discrepancies.

Table 4.1.1 contains data on the total number of children without parental care in the FBiH over the period from 2005 to 2009. The table contains the number of children recorded at the end of each year109.

Table 4.1.1: Total number of children without parental care in the FBiH, by canton, 2005-2009

CANTONS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 UNA-SANA 339 338 325 314 287* POSAVINA 7 5 4 9 10 TUZLA 308 306 323 330 317 ZENIČA-DOBOJ 319 349 336 339 333 BOSNIAN PODRINJE 51 51 51 50 37 CENTRAL BOSNIA 135 145 161 163 155 HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA 100 100 110 107 95 WEST HERZEGOVINA 6 6 9 13 16 SARAJEVO** 358 322 326 309 *** CANTON 10 12 11 8 7 4 TOTAL 1,635 1,633 1,653 1,641 1,254

10 The statistical data on children without parental care was produced by analysing data contained in the questionnaires for the centres for social work/social protection services for collecting data on children without parental care and the questionnaires for institutions for the care of children without parental care for collecting data on children without parental care, unless stated otherwise. 19 * It remains unknown whether two children who had been previously registered remained in the system beyond 2008. ** Data submitted by the Ministry of Labour, Social Policy, Displaced Persons and Refugees of Sarajevo Canton. *** Data not submitted.

Beside the fact that some centres for social work/social protection services and child care institutions did not participate in the research, the reliability of the statistical data remains questionable because of the non-systematic system for child registration. Some data is still missing and it appears very clear that in some centres not all children were duly registered1110. As a manager of one of the centres for social work said, “It may be that social workers unintentionally forgot to make a record of some child”.

It should be noted that, besides the children included in table 4.1.1, 42 children from RS and 33 from Brčko District are/were placed in institutions. It is also possible that more children from Republika Srpska and Brčko District were placed in institutions that did not participate in this study.

4.2 Children Separated from their Biological Parents

A decrease in the number of children separated from their biological parents represents the second result indicator set out by the Policy.

Avoiding the unnecessary separation of children from their parents is one of the principles of the Policy. The Policy underlines that the separation of a child from his/her biological family can have severe and potentially negative consequences for the child’s development and ability to establish close relations with other people; it can also deteriorate or destroy his/her personal or family identity and community affi liation and deprive him/her of informal support normally received from extended family or community of origin. The Policy relies on the principles set forth under Article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that every child has the right to live with his/her family unless it is decided, in accordance with the applicable law and procedures, that such a separation is necessary in the best interests of the child.

The Family Law of the FBiH regulates the rights and obligations of both parents to live together with their child(ren) and equally care for their child(ren) in agreement with each other. In cases where both parents are incapable of taking care of their child(ren) the court shall decide on placing the child(ren) with another person or institution. A parent caring for his/her child(ren) or both parents can temporarily entrust the care and upbringing of their child(ren) to an institution or person meeting the conditions for acting as a legal guardian, provided that approval from the legal guardian body has been obtained. The Law on Social Protection, Protection of Civil Victims of War and Families with Children of the FBiH regulates the placement of children without parental care and children coming from families incapable of fi nancially supporting them as well as the placement of children in need of specifi c protection due to their health status: physical or mental impairment and or disrupted upbringing for cases of neglected children.

The Law prescribes specifi c measures to be implemented by the competent state authorities in cases where parents fail to exercise their rights and obligations set forth under the Law. Thus, the Law foresees the deprival of the right of a parent to live with his/her child. It can also entrust the care of the child to a person or institution if the parent(s) with whom the child lives endanger the child’s best interests and or neglect his/her upbringing and education or if one parent fails to prevent the other parent or a household member from behaving in such a way or in cases where the environment leads to the disturbed upbringing of the child. The measure may be imposed for the period of one year. The court renders its decision on the basis of a request fi led by the parent(s) deprived of his/her parental rights

11 For instance, during the data collection phase of this study one centre promised to send the data at a later date because they did not have it available at that moment, but the data was never received by the authors of this study.

20 or by virtue of its offi ce. The court may deprive a parent of his/her parental rights if the parent endangers his/her child’s safety, health and morale by abusing his/her rights, neglecting his/her parental duties, abandoning the child or failing to take care of him/her or by failing to prevent the other parent or another person from acting against the best interests of the child. The measure remains in eff ect for as long as the reasons for its pronouncement exist. The right to parental care may be restored based on a request submitted by the parent, the child or the legal guardian body12.1

All centres/services in the FBiH apply the provisions set forth under the Family Law of the FBiH (Offi cial Gazette of the FBiH, No. 35/05, 41/05) during the process of separating children from their parents. Besides the umbrella Law, the centres/services apply the following laws:

zLaw on Social Protection, Protection of Civil Victims of War and Families with Children in the FBiH (Offi cial Gazette of the FBiH, No. 36/99, 54/04, 39/06 and14/09) and or cantons through 30 centres/ services; zLaw on Protection from Violence of the FBiH (Offi cial Gazette of the FBiH, No. 22/05) through 5 centres/ services; zCriminal Code of BiH (Offi cial Gazette of BiH, No. 37/03,54/04,61/04, 30/05,55/06 and 32/07) through 5 centres/services; zLaw on Administrative Procedure of BiH (Offi cial Gazette of BiH, No. 29/02 and 12/04) through 5 centres/ services; zCriminal Proceedings Code of the FBiH (Offi cial Gazette of FBiH, No. 35/03, amendments 56/03, 37/03, 78/04, 28/05, 55/06, 27/07, 53/07 and 9/09) through 2 centres/services.

According to the information received from the centres for social work/social protection services, decisions on the separation of children from their parents are usually made by an expert team, but the number of team members and their qualifi cations vary to a great extent (depending on the capacity and number of staff of a particular centre/service). Two centres for social work stated that the decision was made by a manager and a social worker or by a manager who is a social worker by profession, because the centres lacked the staff required for the formation of expert teams.

12 Analysis of the harmonisation of legislation in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Ombudsmen for Human Rights of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Save the Children Norway, November 2009. 21 Table 4.2.1 shows the number of new children separated from their biological families in the FBiH between 2005 and 2009.

Table 4.2.1: Number of new children separated from their biological families in the FBiH, by canton, 2005-2009

CANTONS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 UNA-SANA 60 50 40 51 28 POSAVINA 2 3 0 5 5 TUZLA 39 23 51 45 32 ZENIČA-DOBOJ * 40 50 56 35 40 BOSNIAN PODRINJE 3 4 2 0 0 CENTRAL BOSNIA 14 16 29 23 19 HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA 27 8 10 5 5 WEST HERZEGOVINA** 3 0 3 5 1 SARAJEVO*** 38 46 57 49 **** CANTON 10 0 1 0 1 0 TOTAL 226 201 248 219 130

*In the cases of fi ve children it is not known when they were separated from their biological families. **In the cases of three children it is not known when they were separated from their biological families. ***Data obtained from the Ministry of Labour, Social Policy, Displaced Persons and Refugees of Sarajevo Canton. ****No data submitted.

The table contains incomplete data as it remains unknown as to when eight children were separated from their biological families; the records kept by some institutions indicate that they were deprived of parental care but Sarajevo Canton did not submit data on newly registered children for 2009. Therefore, no consistent reduction in the number of children separated from their biological families can be noted. 4.3 Children Placed in Institutions

A decrease in the number of children, particularly those of very young age, placed in institutions is yet another result indicator set out by the Policy.

Table 4.3.1 contains the number of children without parental care placed in residential, upbringing, educational and rehabilitation facilities from 2005 to 2009. The statistical data also includes several children who were not originally selected as participants in the study that were placed in the following institutions:

z Centre for Education and Upbringing and Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation (Tuzla); zFacility for Social and Healthcare for Disabled and Other People (Sarajevo); z“Naš Dom”: old age people’s home (Travnik).

In addition, the statistical data includes children who resided at the “Most” Child Centre in Zenica, which was transformed in 2008. We should mention that, as of 2007, one child from the FBiH was placed at the “Rada Vranješević” Residential Facility for Children in Banja Luka (Republika Srpska). Besides the children represented in Table 4.3.1, three children (aged 0-3) stayed, together with their mothers, at the Facility for Children without Parental Care in Tuzla in order to support the mothers during a time of crisis and prevent separation.

22 Table 4.3.1: Number of children without parental care placed with institutions in the FBiH, 2005-2009

FAMILY-BASED MODEL INSTITUTIONAL MODEL

TOTAL PLACED IN AGE 0-3 4-6 7-14 15-18 18+ TOTAL 0-3 4-6 7-14 15-18 18+ TOTAL INSTITUTIONS*

2005 10 32** 179 43 7 271 60 58 196 66 51 431 883 2006 10 21 181** 60 12 284 61 51 208 67 55 442 881 2007 9 15 176*** 63 23 286 72 51 239 67 43 472 897 2008 6 14 189*** 73 20 302 66 51 226 75 42 460 882 2009 6 21 178*** 71 28 304 62 49 216 80 40**** 447 786

*Includes children from Sarajevo Canton based on end of year aggregated reports, which made it impossible to classify the data according to the care model or age. ** One child was placed with the Centre for Education and Upbringing and Speech and Hearing Rehabilitation (Tuzla). *** Two children were placed in the Centre for Education and Upbringing and Speech and Hearing Rehabilitation (Tuzla). **** Two children were placed with the Residential Facility for Social and Healthcare for Disabled People (Sarajevo) and the “Naš Dom” Residential Facility for Old Age and Bed Ridden People (Travnik).

According to available data, the number of children placed in institutions was not signifi cantly reduced during the period from 2001 to 2004 (Policy). As shown in Table 4.3.1, the decrease was fi rst noticed in 2009 when many young people became independent and left the institutions.

Figure 4.3.1 shows a comparison between the numbers of children without parental care, by age, at the end of 2005 (prior to the preparation of the Policy) and 2009 (almost two years after the Government of the FBiH adopted the Policy).

Figure 4.3.1: Number of children without parental care placed in institutions in 2005 and 2009.

23 As visible from the above graph, the age group of 7-14 remains the largest for both periods. The highest number of children from the age group 7- 14 from the 2005 graph even increases in 2009, showing that there were no signifi cant changes: one group of children from 2005 reached the age of 18 and left the institutions, while new children of these ages were placed in institutional care between 2005 and 2009.

Looking at the two graphics (one refl ecting data from 2005 and the other from 2009) that mirror the number of children in institutions disaggregated by age it is clear that no signifi cant improvement has been achieved since the approval of the Policy. Young people aged 18+ who stayed in family-based model institutions represent the exception as their number is continuously on the increase. This is caused by the fact that these institutions support young people until they become fully independent. The lack of signifi cant change to the number of children placed in institutions and the age structure of the children shows that the provisions of the Policy on children without parental care are not being implemented in practice. 4.4 Family Support Services

An increased number of family support services and service users (children and families) is one of the result indicators set forth by the Policy.

The Policy accentuates the fact that each measure for the social protection of children should encompass the strengthening of biological families by either preventing separation of children from their families or enabling children already separated from their biological families to return to them.

As stated in the Policy, there is no reliable data on children at risk of separation from their parents. This is partly caused by the fact that we are talking about a heterogeneous population of children covered by the social protection system for various reasons. So far no progress has been made in registering these children and there is no systematic or methodologically harmonised approach to assessing the risk of separation.

The Policy further indicates that there is no data on the reasons for separation of children from their biological families. The reasons that led to the separation of children from their families during the period from 2005 to 2009 have been registered through this research. The prevalence of the most frequent factors is listed below in Table 4.4.1.

Table 4.4.1: Prevalence of the most frequent factors leading to the separation of children from their biological families

REASONS FOR SEPARATION13 PREVALENCE Death of one or both parents 856 Child abandoned by one or both parents 758 Child neglected 378 Diffi cult fi nancial situation 358 One or both parents ill 267 One or both parents unknown 140 Child abused 68 Child ill 57

13 Classifi cation of factors leading to separation of children and families was done based on research conducted by Hope and Homes for Children BiH during 2007, which analyzed reasons for separation of 154 children placed in institutions (Dom-porodica and Children’s Center “Most” in Zenica).

24 It is important to state that nearly 60% of children were separated from their parents for only one reason, 30% were separated for two reasons, while only seven (0.3%) children without parental care were separated for more than three reasons. The data indicates that the provision of systematic support to families at risk of separation might yield signifi cant results considering the fact that most of these families face only one risk factor.

As shown in Table 4.3.1, a diffi cult economic situation was one of the reasons for the separation of 358 children from their biological parents and the sole reason for the separation of a further 132 children. This is very disturbing bearing in mind that poverty and/or other conditions directly or indirectly related to it should never be considered as the sole reason for separating a child from its parents, losing the right to parental care, admitting a child to some form of alternative care institution or preventing a child’s reintegration. Poverty should be seen as a signal that a family needs support14.21

Six centres for social work, including the Cantonal Centre for Social Work in Sarajevo, which covers eight municipal social protection services, claimed that since the adoption of the Policy they had attempted to enhance their work with families at risk of being separated. However, there is no data on whether these activities have been adequately represented in the work of the centres for social work/social protection services in general. In addition, there is no unique approach towards the planning, provision and evaluation of family strengthening services, with the exception of family support programmes implemented by NGOs.

Additionally, the submitted data suggest that from 2005 to 2009 the ratio of staff members working directly with children and those performing administrative technical or personnel activities was below 50% in nearly all cantons, except the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton as registered in 2005 and 2006 (see Table 4.4.2).

Table 4.4.2: Percentage of CSW staff working directly with children, per canton, 2005-2009

CANTONS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 UNA-SANA 38 % 41 % 39 % 42 % 42 % POSAVINA 38 % 33 % 33 % 33 % 38 % TUZLA 28 % 28 % 30 % 30 % 31 % ZENICA-DOBOJ 34 % 35 % 40 % 39 % 38 % BOSNIAN PODRINJE 18 % 18 % 36 % 36 % 36 % CENTRAL BOSNIA 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % 37 % HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA 40 % 40 % 41 % 41 % 43 % WEST HERZEGOVINA** 53 % 50 % 48 % 48 % 48 % SARAJEVO ***** CANTON 10 33 % 33 % 33 % 32 % 27 % TOTAL 226 201 248 219 130

*No data available.

Despite being overburdened by administrative work, the centres for social work/social protection services are attempting to improve the services that they off er to children and families through the establishment of cooperation with various institutions and governmental and NGO organisations. According to the information received from the centres/services, they most often cooperate with the following entities in their work with children and families:

14 United Nations Framework. 8 November 2009. Guidelines for the alternative care of children. Article 14. 25 zline ministries at the federal and cantonal level, municipal authorities and local community representatives; zcourts, police administrations and stations, disciplinary centres; zinstitutions for the alternative care of children; zmedical institutions, hospitals and dispensaries; zprimary and secondary schools and NGOs that deal, among other things, with formal and informal education; zorganisations involved in the improvement of child protection in general (UNICEF, Save the Children UK and Save the Children Norway); zorganisations that off er services related to family empowerment and the prevention of the separation of children from their families (Hope and Homes for Children BiH and the SOS Children’s Village in Bosnia and Herzegovina); zorganisations that off er support and accommodation for the victims of violence (children and women); zorganisations that off er psycho-social support to vulnerable groups; associations of foster parents; zassociations of parents of children with special needs and organisations that support vulnerable groups of children and parents; zyouth Centres, sports clubs, cultural and arts clubs.

The study has demonstrated that, in most cases, the employees of the centres for social work/social protection services only sporadically attend training and professional specialisation programmes1513. The fi elds of education, also covered by several diff erent thematic seminars, attended by staff members of the centres for social work/ social protection services are listed in Table 4.4.3.

Table 4.4.3: Number of training courses, divided by fi elds, attended by staff members of the centres for social work/social protection services from 2005 to 2009

NUMBER OF FIELDS COURSES Alternative care for children, fostering 27 Domestic violence 12 Improvement of work in various fi elds of social work 9 Promotion of child rights and child protection 8 Juvenile delinquency 5 Working with people with special needs 5 Human traffi cking 4 Social inclusion 2

Most training courses that took place over the period 2005-2009 were organised and fi nanced by NGOs (international and local), while only four courses were organised by ministries. The data submitted by the centres/ services indicates that 105 staff members14 (20% of staff ) attended one educational programme16. Since the practice of measuring the impact of advanced training and professional education attended by the centres/services staff does not exist it was not possible to analyse or measure the actual results of the aforementioned education. Although professionals stated that they are using the knowledge gained through these education programmes in

15 Out of the total number of centres for social work/social protection services that submitted data 26 did not have any data on education. 16 77 social workers, 5 pedagogues, 2 psychologists, 15 lawyers and 6 other staff members.

26 their daily work with benefi ciaries the results of the analysis does not indicate any major impact of the education programmes when it comes to working with children without parental care. 4.5 Budget for Child Protection

The Policy foresees the division of the budget for child protection into two parts: one part will support preventive work with families, while the other part will support alternative care for children already included in the public care system (Policy).

The principle of the distribution of fi nancial resources, based on the needs of users, as accentuated by the Policy, implies the need for improved processes and resource management and requires the reallocation of existing budgetary resources and the guarantee of minimum services for all, irrespective of the availability of fi nancial resources through municipal budgets. In the short-term this would enable the fi nancing of the return of institutionalised children to their families or the relocation of children to alternative care institutions, primarily from existing budgetary resources allocated for the institutions. This means that in the medium and long term family support services and alternative services will be fi nanced through the same sources. This would remove the incentive to place children in institutions fi nanced by central resources, while there would be no incentive to fi nd alternative solutions fi nanced, whenever possible, through local resources.

The changes required by the Policy have not yet been made. The fi nancial resources supporting children and families with children are allocated in the same way as before, through the fulfi lment of the following benefi ts:

zchild allowance; zone-time allowance for newborn babies; zsupport to mothers in feeding a child up to six months; zallowance paid to working mothers; zallowance paid to non-working mothers; zaccommodation of children in preschool institutions/student residences; zone-time fi nancial support; zextraordinary fi nancial support; zpermanent fi nancial support.

I t is important to note that children and families cannot enjoy all of the above mentioned benefi ts in all cantons. Sarajevo Canton is the only one in which they can enjoy all of these benefi ts, whereas the benefi t of one-time based allowance for newborn babies and accommodation of children in pre-school institutions and student residences are the only two benefi ts that can be enjoyed in the Herzegovina-Neretva Canton. The situation diff ers in various cantons not only in terms of the possibility to enjoy one of the benefi ts but also in terms of the amounts paid and the regularity of payments.

It was not possible to obtain data on the fi nancial resources spent by the cantonal line ministries or the centres for social work on alternative care for children without parental care during the course of this study. Therefore, the amount of money that was allocated for the placement of children without parental care in institutions or foster families over the course of the reporting period remains unknown. This is mainly due to the fact that the placement of children without parental care is not registered as a separate item within expenditure reports.

Additionally, data obtained from the centres/services indicates that the benefi ts for alternative care are not harmonised across diff erent cantons or even the centres/services in one canton.

27 As an example1715, the table below shows the discrepancies in allowances for the placement of children within Dom- porodica. The information, received from certain centres for social work (CSW) based in various cantons covers the period from 2005 to 2009 (see Table 4.5.1).

Table 4.5.1: Discrepancies in allowances for the placement of children within Dom-porodica , 2005-2009

CSW 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BIHAĆ 550 550 640 705 760 TRAVNIK 496 496 580 640 691 GORAŽDE 550 640 640 705 760

The collected data indicates the existence of discrepancies in allowances for the placement of children from within the same canton, with the same institutions and over the same period. Table 4.5.2 shows the diff erences in the allowances for the placement of children with the “Egipat” Orphanage, as per the information received from some of the social work centres in the Central Bosnia Canton for 2005 to 2009.

Table 4.5.2: Discrepancies in allowances for the placement of children from the Central Bosnia Canton with the “Egipat” Orphanage, 2005-2009

CSW 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BUGOJNO 240 274 274 318 300 FOJNICA 350 350 350 350 350 KISELJAK 400 450 450 450 450 KREŠEVO 350 400 460 460 460

Remarkable discrepancies were noted in the amount of money and means of fi nancing for allowances for the placement of children with foster families. The basic diff erences refer to the following:

zamount of money paid as an allowance is not equal in all municipalities and cantons (it ranges from 92 BAM to 476 BAM);

zinclusion of child earnings (e.g., retirement benefi t for a deceased parent) into the allowances in some municipalities;

zfailure to pay allowances to children placed with relatives in some municipalities.

The diff erences between the allowances paid to children placed with foster families, as stated by some centres for social work, across cantons for the period from 2005 to 2009 are shown in Table 4.5.3.

17 Data received from the institutions that submitted the most complete sets of data were used in these examples.

28 Table 4.5.3: Diff erences between allowances paid to children placed with foster families in diff erent cantons, 2005-2009

KINSHIP FOSTER CARE NON-RELATIVE FOSTER CARE CSW 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 BIHAĆ 200 200 200 200 200 * * * * * ORAŠJE 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 TUZLA 320 330 360 390 440 320 330 360 390 440 BREZA 102 102 102 136 107 102 102 102 186 146 GORAŽDE * 169.5 183 269.5 269.5 * 169.5 183 269.5 269.5 BUGOJNO 240 274 274 318 364 240 274 274 318 364 STOLAC 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 SARAJEVO * * * * * 476 476 476 476 476

*No data available.

On the basis of data submitted by the centres for social work/social protection services it can be inferred that allowances for children placed with foster families are in general lower than the cost of placing children with institutions. Table 4.5.4 gives examples of certain centres for social work, showing the ratio between resources allocated for the placement of children with various institutions and foster families.

Table 4.5.4: Ratio between resources allocated for the placement of children with foster families and various institutions, 2005-2009

CSW 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 VELIKA KLADUŠA Foster care 200 200 200 200 200 Dom-porodica 550 550 640 705 760 SOS Children’s Village (Gračanica) 200 200 200 200 200 BUGOJNO Foster care 240 274 274 318 364 Home Family 412 580 640 690 690 “Egipat” Orphanage 240 274 274 318 300 ČAPLJINA Foster care 300 300 300 300 300 “Mother’s village” 350 350 350 350 350 “Mostar” Orphanage 460 460 460 570 570

29 As indicated in the Policy and on the basis of the above-stated, the conclusion can be drawn that it is necessary to urgently reallocate existing budgetary resources and ensure minimum services for all, irrespective of the potential fi nancing from municipal budgets. The issue of how to plan the child protection budget in general arises, bearing in mind the fact that it is not possible to monitor the fi nancial resources spent on alternative care for children without parental care over the past few years. 4.6 Adopted Children

An increase in the number of children being adopted is another result indicator defi ned by the Policy. It is stressed that, in line with respect for a child’s right to live in a family environment, adoption should have priority for those children separated from their families and in need of a permanent accommodation solution. This type of alternative care, if performed in a professional manner and in accordance with the respective selection criteria of children and parents, is considered the best and most permanent solution for the care and protection of children without parental care (Policy).

The Policy also indicates that, up until the moment of its drafting, available data on adoption was incomplete and could not be used to create a realistic insight into the use of this type of alternative care for children without parental care. Thus, the incomplete offi cial data for the FBiH showed only four cases of adoption in 2003, whereas internal data from non-governmental organisations dealing with this category of children recorded at least 19 cases of adopted children (Policy).

The study shows a considerably higher number of adopted children than could be expected basis on the previously known data. Table 4.6.1 shows how many adopted children were recorded during the period from 2005 to 2009.

Table 4.6.1: Number of adopted children per Canton 2005-20091816

CANTONS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 UNA-SANA 9 14 7 7 4 POSAVINA 2 2 0 0 0 TUZLA 9 10 8 2 8 ZENIČA-DOBOJ 5 3 5 9 6 BOSNIAN PODRINJE 0 0 0 0 1 CENTRAL BOSNIA 0 1 0 4 7 HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA 0 0 0 0 0 WEST HERZEGOVINA 0 0 0 0 0 SARAJEVO* 13 5 13 11 13 CANTON 10 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 38 35 33 33 39

18 According to the Policy, adoption is considered as the best and the most permanent type of care for children without parental care and local adoption is preferred. The Family Law of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina stipulates that a child can only be adopted abroad when in it is in the best interest of the child and when the child cannot be adopted locally. Besides that, international adoption cannot be conducted without the prior permission of the federal authorities responsible for social protection.

30 * Data from the Sarajevo Canton Centre for Social Work was only submitted through the General questionnaire for the centres for social work/social protection services.

It is important to mention that discrepancies have been noticed between the number of adopted children, based on the analysis of data on all children within the system (from the Questionnaire for centres for social work/social protection services and the Questionnaire for institutions caring for children without parental care for collecting data on children without parental care) and the number of adopted children submitted by the centres for social work/social protection services via the General questionnaire for centres for social work/social protection services. The data ranges from 27 to 45 adopted children, with slightly less diff erences between 2008 and 2009 (one more child recorded for 2008 and two less children for 2009 in the General questionnaire for centres for social work/social protection services).

The study has shown that adoption occurs mainly for children who were previously institutionalised (over 85%), while a considerably lower number of adopted children came from family-based institutions, foster families or their biological families.

Although it is evident that there have been many more adoptions of children without parental care than previously thought there are still many who reach adulthood in institutions or foster families. These fi ndings are even more surprising when we take into consideration the growing number of potential adoptive families. There are 1,162 requests for adoption fi led within the centres for social work in the FBiH. The number of potential adoptive families per canton is shown in Table 4.6.2.

Table 4.6.2: Number of requests for adoption per canton from 2005 to 2009

CANTON 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 UNA-SANA 137 225 207 203 286 POSAVINA 2 4 5 12 22 TUZLA 146 179 204 219 277 ZENIČA-DOBOJ 82 95 105 165 237 BOSNIAN PODRINJE 8 13 14 7 13 CENTRAL BOSNIA 19 22 29 44 67 HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA 18 28 27 37 48 WEST HERZEGOVINA 11 12 15 24 32 SARAJEVO * * * * 154 CANTON 10 6 10 16 17 26 TOTAL 429 588 622 728 1,162

* Data not provided. 4.7 Foster Care

Introducing various forms of foster care and the increased number of children placed with foster families are considered one of the indicators of the Policy implementation results.

Available data shows foster care at diff erent levels of development in the cantons of the FBiH. The Policy states that the largest number of children without parental care placed in foster families can be seen in the following cantons: Tuzla, Zenica-Doboj and Sarajevo. This study shows a similar situation for the period from 2005 to 2009. The

31 number of children without parental care placed in foster families (kinship or non-relatives) during the mentioned period is shown in Table 4.7.1.

Table 4.7.1: Number of children without parental care placed with foster families per canton from 2005 to 2009

CANTON 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 UNA-SANA 212 199 187 175 152 POSAVINA 1 0 0 0 0 TUZLA 131 138 152 158 152 ZENIČA-DOBOJ 106 114 116 98* 90** BOSNIAN PODRINJE 16 17 17 9 6 CENTRAL BOSNIA 64 69 76 75 68 HERZEGOVINA-NERETVA 40 48 55 54 45 WEST HERZEGOVINA 2 2 2 4 5 SARAJEVO 170 158 152 133 92 CANTON 10 10 10 7 5 2 TOTAL 752 755 764 711* 612**

* For 2 children it remains unknown whether they stayed with the families after 2007. ** For 1 child it is unknown whether he/she stayed with the family after 2008.

Data obtained by this study is not in accordance with the offi cial data from 2005 given in the Policy. Namely, the Policy states that only 38 children were placed with registered foster families in 2005 in the Una-Sana Canton, which is a much lower fi gure that the one obtained by this study (212). Also, the total number of children in foster families in 2005, 805 according to the Policy, is diff erent from the number obtained by this study (752). The discrepancies in data most probably occurred due to the use of diff erent methodology for data collection. The analysis which was used as a basis for the creation of the Policy represents offi cial statistics on the number of children in certain types of care, whereas this analysis has attempted to collect personal data on children through direct contact with the centres for social work and other relevant institutions. Such a method of data collection eliminates error in the total number of children.

Based on the data obtained by the study, as shown in Table 4.7.1, it can be seen that there has been no increase in the number of children without parental care placed with foster families (with the exception of 2007 when the general number of children without parental care increased, as shown in Table 4.1.1).

Table 4.7.2 shows the movement of children placed with foster families over the period 2006-2009. It shows that the children usually stayed with the foster families until they became independent, while a very small number of children returned to their biological families or were adopted. A certain (continuously growing) number of children from foster families became institutionalised. This brings us to the need to refl ect on whether enough attention is paid to processes of evaluation, planning and preparation for the placement of children with foster families and support given to foster families (in the form of counselling, training, etc). The extremely limited number of children with special needs who were placed with foster families indicates the necessity for the urgent development of specialised fostering.

As shown in Table 4.7.2, most children were placed in kinship foster care (with their relatives), which was also the case at the time that the Policy was designed. Non-relative foster care is at various levels of development in the FBiH. The largest number of children placed in non-relative foster care can be seen in Tuzla Canton (42 children

32 were recorded at the end of 2009) and there was also continuous growth in the number of children in these foster families over the period from 2005 to 2009. This situation was expected since there was a strong focus on developing foster care in this canton, which was implemented through a joint project run by the NGO Save the Children UK and the Canton Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare. Although there is no data on the number of children in non-relative foster care it has been established that there was some development of this type of alternative care in the Canton, through eff orts made by the NGO Hope and Homes for Children BiH. According to information provided by foster parents who participated in this study, the most common source of information on foster care were media campaigns run by non-governmental organisations. Moreover, the foster parents who were trained in foster care mostly stated that the training was organised and implemented by NGOs (Save the Children UK, Hope and Homes for Children BiH and SOS Children’s Village BiH).

On the contrary, in the Posavina, Bosnian Podrinje, Herzegovina-Neretva, West Herzegovina cantons and Canton 10 only one or two children were registered as living with non-relative foster families during the period from 2005 to 2009

Table 4.7.2: Movement of children without parental care placed with foster families from 2006 to 2009

CHILDREN WHO LEFT THEIR FOSTER FAMILIES OF YEAR ADOPTION INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTIONALISATION CHILDREN PLACED WITHIN THE YEAR THE WITHIN CHILDREN PLACED CHILDREN IN PLACEMENT AT THE END AT CHILDREN IN PLACEMENT TRANSFER FROM RELATIVES TO TO TRANSFER FROM RELATIVES RETURN TO BIOLOGICAL FAMILY BIOLOGICAL TO RETURN NON-RELATIVES AND VICE-VERSA VICE-VERSA AND NON-RELATIVES RELATIVES 51 3 3 0 2 35 543 NON-RELATIVES 8 0 0 0 0 1 54 2006 TOTAL 74* 3 3 0 2 36 755* RELATIVES 75 3 1 1 2 56 555 NON-RELATIVES 9 4 0 0 1 1 57 2007 TOTAL 108* 7 1 1 3 57 764* RELATIVES 53 7 0 2 3 81 513** NON-RELATIVES 17 0 0 0 1 6 67 2008 TOTAL 87* 7 0 2 4 87 713* RELATIVES 46 9 1 2 6 87 451*** NON-RELATIVES 8 1 0 1 2 2 68**** 2009 TOTAL 70* 10 1 3 8 89 611*

* This also includes data from Sarajevo Canton that could not be integrated into the table in any other way as it was only submitted through the General questionnaire for centres for social work/social protection services.| ** For 2 children it remains unknown whether they stayed with their relatives after 2007. *** For 1 child it is unknown whether he/she stayed with the relatives after 2008. **** One child died.

33 Centres for social services in the aforementioned cantons as well as in other cantons face the serious problem of insuffi cient funding for campaigns to promote this type of alternative care. Another problem is the lack of standard procedures for the recruiting, selection, training, support and supervision of foster families as well as the amount of child allowance (which varies from canton to canton) and its regularity, as recognised by the Policy. In the opinion of the foster parents who participated in this study, the introduction of professional foster care would considerably contribute to the development of this form of alternative care for children without parental care. 4.8 Prioritizing placement of children into families

One of the result indicators defi ned by the Policy is the priority placement of children from institutions with foster families and their return to their original families, with support provided to the families.

It is well known that almost every form of institutionalisation can have a negative eff ect on a child’s development, which is particularly so in the case of younger children and in the case of children who spend many years institutionalised. Family-based placement has the potential to off er each child the individual care protection and love of the person who takes on the role of the parent, a chance to learn about roles within the family and community and fi nally a chance to be included in the everyday activities of a family and the wider community. Consequently, the child is better prepared for independence and can better deal with everyday situations in his/ her independent life (Policy). The Policy builds upon Article 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which gives priority to the family-based placement of children.

Table 4.8.1 shows the number of children who were returned to their biological families or placed with foster families after being institutionalised over the period from 2005 to 2009.

Table 4.8.1: Number of children who were returned to their biological families or placed with foster families after being institutionalised (2005-2009)

Alternative care after institutionalisation* 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Biological families 12 25 19 39 27 Adoptive families 23 24 12 18 16 Foster families 5 4 6 2 9 Family-based institutions 12 8 5 11 4 Total 52 47 35 58 51

* This does not include children whose data was not submitted by the centres for social work/social protection services or were submitted as incomplete (see Table 3.1.1) or who were placed in institutions that failed to provide data (table 3.1.1).

As seen in the table, in general there is no record of an increase in the number of institutionalised children who were placed in a family environment. There is a slight increase in the number of children returned to their biological families over the period from 2005 to 2009 and a slight decrease in the number of adopted children for the same period.

34 4.9 Duration of the Placement

A reduction in the time that children spend in institutions and foster families constitutes another indicator of the Policy implementation results.

Children should be placed in institutions for children without parental care or foster families only on a temporary basis. During the time that children spend institutionalised or with foster families it is necessary to work on strengthening their biological families so that they can return to their parents and if this is not possible then they should be adopted, which according to the Policy is the best and the most permanent form of alternative care for children without parental care.

At the time the Policy was developed approximately 50% of children had been in institutions for longer than three years (Policy). At the end of 2009, 50% of children in institutions had been there for more than fi ve years and approximately 20% of children had been institutionalised for over 10 years.

Figure 4.9.1 shows the average duration that children spent in institutions over the period 2005-2009 before either returning to their biological families, being adopted or becoming independent.

Figure 4.9.1: Average duration of stay for children in institutions before returning to their biological families, adoption or independence (2005-2009)

Reduction in the average duration of the institutionalisation of children before their return to their biological families was recorded for the aforesaid period (from four years in 2005 to three months in 2009), whereas the average duration of institutionalisation before adoption remained relatively unchanged and was usually somewhere between six and sixteen months. Yet, deterrent data exists that shows that 29 children were institutionalised up until their maturity following long periods of institutionalisation ranging from 14 and a half to 19 and a half years. It seems that the quality of the evaluation and monitoring of children’s placement and best interests as well as timely reaction and fi nding acceptable solutions for children could be an issue.

35 4.10 Children’s Contact with their Biological Families

A proportional increase in the number of children who established and maintained contact with their biological families is another result indicator set forth under the Policy.

As stated in the Policy, in cases where a child is separated from its family the child’s right to be in contact with his/ her family should be respected as this ensures respect for the principles of family continuity and closeness. Also, maintaining contact can create the preconditions for the child’s return to his/her biological family.

Due to the ineffi cient system for recording the level of contact that children without their parental care have with their biological families and relatives a proper examination of this indicator was not possible. The amount of contact with relatives was processed only for 248 out of the total number of children who were within the public care system during the entire period from 2005 to 2009; precise records were maintained only for these children.19

Table 4.10.1 shows an increase in the average annual number of contacts between children without parental care and their relatives.

Table 4.10.1: Contact between children without parental care and their relatives over the period from 2005 to 2009

2005 2009 Total number of visits 1,301 1,496 Annual average 5.25 6.03

It is important to stress that 21 children who had no contact during the year 2005 had established contact by 2009. However, 23 children who had contact with their relatives in 2005 did not maintain it by 2009.

The possibility to maintain relations with birth family members is also an important element when dealing with data on the placement of minor siblings. This study showed that siblings who are/were currently in the public care system usually stay together (78%); however, there were a considerable number of children who were separated from their brothers and sisters (see Figure 4.10.1) .

A limited number of children were placed in specialised institutions due to their special needs and this partially justifi es their separation from their siblings. Nevertheless, the question remains as to why 12% of children were separated from their parents while their minor siblings were still living with them.

19 This does not include children placed in kinship foster care, because they have contact with their relatives on a daily basis without the need to seek permission from the competent centre for social work to contact parents and other relatives.

36 Figure 4.10.1: Placement of siblings without parental care in 2009

4.11 Needs Analysis and Care Plans for Children

Policy implementation result indicators are also carried out needs analyses and individual care plans for all children that are reviewed on a regular basis.

According to data provided by the centres for social work/social protection services and the institutions, there is no individual care plan for approximately 70% of children (see Figure 4.11.1). Moreover, it has been established that the existing care plans often do not satisfy the basic principles: they were created by the centre for social work or by the institution where the child was placed without the participation of all relevant persons.

Figure 4.11.1: Existence of individual care plans for children without parental care in 2009

37 4.12 Support in becoming Independent

One of the result indicators defi ned by the Policy is a proportional increase in the number of children provided with support in their eff orts aimed at becoming independent and in fi nding employment after they leave an institution.

According to data from 2005, approximately 34% of children without parental care from the FBiH were between 15 and 18 years of age (Policy). By the end of 2009 around 25% of children were of the same age, yet 8% of young people without parental care older than 18 were recorded within the public care system. These were mostly young people that were still attending school; however, it was noted that placement in institutions was being extended for young people older than 18 even when they were not attending school, which constitutes a form of support for becoming independent.

As stated in the Policy, the general impression is that institutions do not manage to adequately prepare children without parental care for independent life, in terms of knowledge and the level of education that they gain along with the skills necessary for independent living. There is also insuffi cient networking amongst institutions with other institutions and organisations within the community that could provide signifi cant support for children and young people once they become independent.

Centres for social work/social protection services mainly claimed that their possibilities were limited when it came to support for children and young people in the process of becoming independent and after they leave institutions or foster families. Most centres/services off ered counselling as a service they were able to provide. There were sporadic cases of other forms of support such as the possibility to live in so-called “half-way houses”, one-time allowances and support when applying for jobs. Yet, as underlined by the centres for social work/social protection services and relevant cantonal ministries, there is no organised support provided to young people without parental care in the process of their becoming independent. The exception relates to projects run by certain non-governmental organisations (SOS Children’s Villages and Hope and Homes for Children).

According to information emanating from the ministries, support for young people who leave institutions for children without parental care is often left entirely to those institutions. The institutions claim that the dominant form of support is to enable young people to stay in the institution for some time even after the subventions for their accommodation are no longer paid. Other forms of support (fi nding accommodation, fi nding employment etc.) are often provided exclusively through the private connections of the institution’s staff members. Also, there is a practice of connecting young people with foreign “donors”: families with whom children had stayed during their vacations and which are prepared to cover their living expenses for a certain period of time after they leave the institution, but which also off er scholarships for their continued education in their country.

Young people without parental care who took part in this study stated that the support they received while becoming independent was provided by staff members from institutions, particularly educators and social workers, and from the relevant centres for social work/social protection services as well as friends, especially those who had earlier left the institutions. Their support, in most cases, consisted of providing advice, which meant a lot since they said they were afraid of leaving the institution. They said that it would have been very useful if they could have had some support in fi nding employment, been able to live in an apartment free of charge at the beginning and had some fi nancial aid until they found employment. They also stressed the need for help in connecting and building better relations with their relatives (which is a permanent task of the centres for social work and institutions/foster families from the moment of a child’s placement), who could then provide some support after the young people had left the institution. They seemed aware that they were facing a period that would require a lot of eff ort and reliance upon their own capabilities. Therefore, most of them thought

38 that graduating from secondary school, being actively engaged during practical classes and working part-time during school could increase their chances of fi nding and keeping employment thus solving other vital issues (accommodation, living costs etc). 4.13 Progress of Children in terms of their Psycho-physical Development, Gaining Skills and Knowledge and Building Relations with Family and Community

A pr oportional increase in the number of children under social protection whose results in terms of their psycho- physical development, gained skills, knowledge and relations with their family and the community are better than those achieved in the previous years is also an indicator of the Policy implementation results.

Progress of children within the public care system in the aforementioned fi elds is expected as a result of the Policy implementation with respect to the principles given in this document, namely:

zprinciple of the best interests of the child; zavoiding unnecessary separation from parents; zfamily-based care; zplanning and monitoring the quality of child protection; zchild participation; zempowering children and their care providers.

Although NGOs try to monitor the progress of the children included in their various projects for improving the protection of children without parental care and families at risk of separation there is no established system for monitoring the progress of these children at the level of the FBiH.

39 5. Existing Interventions in the Priority Areas of the Policy

One of the general strategic goals of the Policy is to create the conditions for the integration of the best practice system developed through pilot projects and NGO activities. Achieving this and other set goals should be done through a series of activities within four priority areas: monitoring benefi ciaries within the system of social protection of children and families, developing services to assist families, developing and strengthening family- based care for children without parental care and transforming the non-family based care system (institutional care). 5.1 Monitoring Benefi ciaries within the System for the Legal and Social Protection of Children and Families

This component is related to the standardisation of criteria, decision making methods, responsibilities and methods for the benefi ciary needs analysis, development of individual plans and the start review and completion of the implementation of measures services and other activities decided on or implemented by the centres for social work, the courts or commissions for the evaluation of the capabilities of children with developmental disabilities (Policy). The Centre for Children without Parental Care “Duga”- Kulen Vakuf Database

The centre for children without parental care “Duga”- Kulen Vakuf has developed its own database for children without parental care placed in the institution. The database contains a personal fi le for each and every child with personal data on the children, personal documentation, medical fi ndings and other documentation as well as the reports of the institution for the relevant social work centre, records on visits by parents/relatives and professionals from the centre for social work and a photograph of the child. The database enables quick and simple search as well as an overview of the total number of children placed in the institution over a given period of time, which is categorised by relevant characteristics such as gender, age, length of stay etc.

SOS Children’s Village BiH Quality4Children: Quality Standards for Children without Parental Care in Europe

The SOS Children’s Village BiH applies the document Quality4Children: Quality Standards for Children without Parental Care in Europe, which is based on experience of working in 32 European countries. The standards are aimed at supporting carers for children and young people without parental care - children and young biological parents, carers, organisations caring for children as well as governmental institutions.

Quality4Children includes 18 standards grouped around three phases of the care process:

zdecision-making and admission process (6 standards); zcare-giving process (8 standards); zleaving care (4 standards).

Each standard is composed of the following elements:

40 ztitle and description of the standard (clear statements relative to the necessary quality level); zselection of quotations; zresponsibilities (set of tasks, duties and defi ned areas of responsibility for all participants included in the implementation of a certain standard); zguidelines (conditions related to the implementation of each specifi c standard); zwarning signs (description of what must not happen if each specifi c standard is implemented).

Save the Children UK (SCUK) Project Ensuring the Right to Quality Social Protection for the Better Life of Vulnerable Children

The NGO Save the Children UK has been implementing the project Ensuring the Right to Quality Social Protection for the Better Life of Vulnerable Children since 2007. Three results are expected from this project by August 2010, when it should be completed.

Firstly, standards for planning and the provision and monitoring of services for children by the centres for social work will be developed and accepted as criteria for measuring and monitoring the quality of the services. Standards will promote family-based and community-based forms of care as well as the importance of case management. Monitoring indicators and a cost analysis for the implementation of standards will be an integral part of its development. Wider consultation and participation by the bearers of responsibility in the development process will ensure a commitment towards the future implementation of the standards, which will be harmonised nationwide.

Secondly, professional capacities in the fi eld of child protection will be built through the establishment and implementation of a multidisciplinary and participatory model for planning and the provision and monitoring of child protection services. Professionals in this fi eld from Mostar and Doboj will be actively included in this process. Shortcomings in the quality of service provision will be overcome through the establishment of new services, piloting monitoring mechanisms and the continuous improvement of the eff orts of all bearers of responsibility. Models developed in two communities will serve to complete the process of the development of the standards and will be off ered to other municipalities for replication.

Thirdly, the capacities of children, parents, benefi ciary groups and NGOs in two pilot locations (Mostar and Doboj) will be empowered for active participation within the planning and monitoring of child protection services. The focus of the eff orts will be on the mobilisation of resources from the community aimed at a two- fold change: target groups become active participants in the planning and provision of services, participating directly through their ideas and personal involvement and the NGO sector will strengthen its capacity and enhance its profi le to become a partner to the public sector in child protection processes, advocating for and with children. Formal and informal civil society groups, vulnerable children, young people and their parents, will have the opportunity to become aware of their ability to infl uence social services: from decision-making to service provision.

The project will be followed by a detailed report and specifi c recommendations to the authorities on how to implement the aforementioned standards as well as useful publications for both professionals and children.

41 5.2 Family Support Services

This area is related to the standardisation of existing and new services in support of families: prevention and empowerment of families to adequately exercise their parental rights and duties, and services to family members with specifi c risks (Policy) Hope and Homes for Children BiH (HHC) Family Support Programme Sarajevo, Zenica-Doboj and Bosnia-Podrinje cantons

The British NGO Hope and Homes for Children (HHC) has been implementing the Family Support Programme in Sarajevo Canton since 2003. The Programme covers two aspects of assistance: prevention of children being separated from their biological parents and the reintegration of children into their birth families when separation had already occurred. This is done in cooperation with the Sarajevo Canton Centre for Social Work and all municipal social protection services, primary and secondary schools, health centres and safe houses.

At the beginning of the implementation of the programme only social workers worked with families, but since 2006 pedagogues, psychologists and teachers have also been involved. Regular contact with families proved to be a very important factor in the implementation of the planned activities. It was perceived that intensive family assistance should, in most cases, be of limited duration (so that the family would not develop a passive attitude and dependency on the assistance); most families had a need for assistance from six months to one year.

Most services for families were provided with the aim of satisfying the needs of the family in terms of living situations, education and attitudes, but there was also a considerable contribution in family and social relations, improved household economics and improvement in the health of all family members. All interventions made long-term improvements to the functioning of the families and prevented children from being separated from their parents for 98% of families that were included in the programme.

There were also considerable results achieved in the reintegration of children already separated from their parents: of the 18 children in the programme who were institutionalised 15 were successfully returned to their birth families, while 3 received support in placement with and adapting to foster families. The latter being a more acceptable form of care than institutionalisation.

Analysis of the programme showed that the fi nances required for prevention of separation are considerably lower when compared to the cost of institutionalising children without parental care. Thus, it can be concluded that prevention is diff erent from institutionalisation (which in the majority of cases is of a long-term character) because it is both shorter-term, more cost eff ective and, most importantly, children stay with their biological families.

From 2003 up until the end of 2009 a total of 459 children from 235 families were included in the programme.

The programme was also implemented in the Zenica-Doboj Canton over the period from 2007 to 2009 within the project Development of Family-based Services for Children without Parental Care in Zenica. The programme has also been implemented in the Bosnian Podrinje Canton since 2009.

42 SOS Children’s Village BiH Family Empowerment Programme Sarajevo, Mostar and Goražde

The SOS Children’s Village BiH has implemented the Family Empowerment Programme since 2006. The purpose of the programme is to enable children at risk of losing parental care to stay and live with their biological families. A particular benefi t of the programme is its long-term character, as it will be implemented for as long as families are in need of assistance and moreover all family members will be included and take active roles in setting goals and planning activities. A vital precondition is the participation of the local community through the provision of material aid, expertise, premises and various benefi ts. Services are available for the entire family and are provided both through SOS Children’s Village’s programmes (SOS Kindergartens, Community Centre, Family Centre, Superbus) and through community capacities. In practice, this means that children get the opportunity to develop their full potential in workshops, while their parents are given the chance to improve the quality of their parenting knowledge and skills through lectures and workshops organised for them.

By March 2010 a total of 479 children from 212 families had been included in the programme, coming from three municipalities in Sarajevo Canton: Novi Grad, Novo Sarajevo and Ilijaš as well as the towns of Mostar and Goražde. 5.3 Foster Families as a Form of Care

This area is related to the promotion application and additional development of family-based forms of care for children without parental care and above all adoption, which is the best possible form of alternative care for children without parental care. The latter is recommended for all cases of children without parental care and also foster care when all eff orts to keep a child with his/her biological family have failed (Policy) Hope and Homes for Children BiH Foster Care Project Sarajevo Canton

The organisation Hope and Homes for Children in cooperation with the Sarajevo Canton Centre for Social Work implemented the Foster Care Project in Sarajevo Canton from 2003 up until the beginning of 2009.

In December 2003 training on foster care was organised and implemented for 36 professionals from all eight municipal social protection services. There were also practical workshops during which 70 professionals from all services were familiarised with the instruments for the recruitment, evaluation, training and verifi cation of foster families.

Recurrent activities on promoting foster care have been implemented since 2004. At the same time, families interested in foster care were visited and evaluated and potential foster families trained. Over the period from 2005 to 2007 there were four such trainings in which, besides potential foster families, six professionals from municipal social protection services also participated. It was one of the forms of strengthening their capacities so that they can organise (without assistance from the NGO sector) similar education independently in the future

The Sarajevo Canton Centre for Social Work, with a view to centralising the monitoring and support of foster care, created the position of Foster Care Coordinator in 2006. This position was funded by the organisation HHC

43 up until the beginning of 2009 after which, through mutual agreement, it was supposed to become part of the system. However, due to an inability to provide the necessary funding, this did not happen. Cancelling the position of Foster Care Coordinator considerably complicated further activities on the development of this form of care for children without parental care in the region of Sarajevo Canton.

With support from the HHC and the Sarajevo Canton Centre for Social Work foster parents established the Association of Foster Parents of Sarajevo Canton “Perspektiva” in 2007. HHC provided continuous support up until the end of the project, mostly through the organisation of monthly meetings, periodic training and the donation of computer and offi ce equipment and by fi nancing participation in workshops. In line with available funding this support continued after the project had been completed.

During the project 32 children were placed with foster families that had undergone the aforementioned training. The adaptation of children to their new families and the internal functioning of foster families were continuously monitored by experts from the HHC and relevant social protection services. In addition, seven children and their foster parents received intensive support from the HHC educators who worked with the children as tutors for various subjects taught in school. The educators also assisted these children in the development of their psycho-physical capabilities and assisted both children and their foster parents in dealing with diff erent obstacles. During the time that children spent in foster families considerable progress was noted in their emotional and social development and in their education. 5.4. Alternative Forms of Care

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is moving towards the implementation of the deinstitutionalisation and the transformation of existing services for children without parental care. This will include the simultaneous development and provision of various services to enable the provision of adequate assistance to families and children during and after the transformation. Apart from the standardisation of services related to the placement of children in limited-capacity institutions (up to 12 children), which should be the prevailing form of institutionalisation, there will also be a standardisation of services for the emergency and short-term placement for children, mothers with children, victims of family violence and other categories of benefi ciaries in need of this kind of accommodation. For young people leaving institutions or foster families protective measures are foreseen for after they have turned 18 years of age (Policy). Hope and Homes for Children BiH Development of Family-based Services for Children without Parental Care in Zenica

Hope and Homes for Children implemented the project Development of Family-based Care Services for Children without Parental Care from 2006 to 2008 in Zenica. The project was implemented in partnership with local authorities: the Ministry of Labour, Social Policy and Refugees of Zenica-Doboj Canton, the Municipality of Zenica, cantonal centres for social work, the Children’s Centre “Most” and “Dom Porodica”. Through this project the transformation of an institution for children without parental care, namely the Children’s Centre “Most”, happened for the fi rst time in BiH.

The initial activities comprised a detailed evaluation of all children. The evaluation consisted of interviews with the children, their biological families and or relatives and this formed the basis for recommendations on further care for each individual child.

44 Once the evaluation was completed a team of professionals was gathered to work in the Zenica-Doboj Canton and they were formally divided into the Reintegration Team and the Youth Assistance Team. The activities of these professionals were focused on transforming the institution into the following services:

zprevention of separation from parents; zreintegration of children into their biological families; zadoption; zfoster care; zsmall family home; zassistance to young people leaving institutions.

Since the transformation process of the Children’s Centre “Most” lasted for longer than had been planned changes were made to the plans for the further care of the children. Also, some children placed in the “Dom Porodica” were included in these developed services. Table 5.4.1 shows the original and accomplished plans for working with children.

Table 5.4.1: Original needs and accomplished plans for working with children SERVICE ORIGINAL NEEDS ACCOMPLISHED (No. of children) Prevention unknown 3520 Reintegration 5 24 Adoption 7 9 Fostering 19 9 Assistance to young 11 13 people Small family home 11 12 Total 53 102

The greatest contribution to the preparation of children for the new services was given by the staff members of the Children’s Centre “Most” and the Reintegration Team. This Team, in cooperation with the competent centres for social work, continued to monitor the children who had returned to their birth families and provided support for these children and their families for one year during the process of adaptation.

There were 12 children for whom none of the other services was appropriate and therefore a new service was created: the so-called Small Family Home. This service is an ordinary house in an ordinary street that represents a home for a maximum number of 12 children. Although it belongs to the same type of institution (Dom Porodica) it refl ects a family type lifestyle. The fi rst small family home was opened in Zenica in June 2008.

HHC provided the capital investment and expert and technical assistance for carrying out of all of the activities foreseen by the project. The local authorities committed to accepting new services and funding their functioning from 2009 onwards. Additionally, there was a new systematisation of posts (with a fi nancial evaluation of the new services made against the cost of the previous system), consequently some former employees of the Children’s Centre “Most” were employment in the new services, while some others (mainly nurses) were transferred to the old age people’s home that was established in the former premises of the Children’s Centre “Most”. 20 Children identifi ed by Centers for Social Work in Zenica-Doboj Canton as children at risk of separation from their families. HHC’s team for reintegration and support worked directly with children and families in order to prevent separation of children and families and place- ment of children in institutions. 45 Hope and Homes for Children BiH Young Adult Support Sarajevo, Zenica-Doboj and Bosnia-Podrinje cantons

Hope and Homes for Children implements the Young Adult Support Project, which provides assistance to young people in their eff orts to become independent when leaving institutions. The offi cial start of the project was November 2002, although assistance started much earlier in June 1998.

Up until 2007 the programme had been implemented in Sarajevo Canton with 18 young people who were placed in the Home for Children without Parental Care (at that time the Orphanage “Bjelave”). The programme has been implemented in the Zenica-Doboj Canton since 2007 and in the Bosnian Podrinje Canton since 2009.

The HHC implements the Young Adult Support Project in cooperation with the centres for social work, orphanages, institutions for education and upbringing, companies and other local community resources.

The HHC experience has shown that the needs of young people participating in the programme are usually the following:

zmaterial aid for food and living costs up until they fi nd employment; zfi nding and keeping employment; zsolving the accommodation issue; zfi nishing previously begun education; zlearning social skills; zdeveloping and strengthening self-confi dence; zintegration into the local community (developing social networks outside of the institution); zmaking and maintaining contact with their relatives; zhealth control and improvement.

Based on these needs, the main activities to be carried out during the assistance are defi ned with the individual young persons. Identifi cation and evaluation of the young person’s needs, the creation of individual protection plans, implementation of agreed activities and the evaluation and monitoring of the process of becoming independent are followed by two experts (social worker/psychologist/pedagogue) in cooperation with the young person. The experts follow up on the conduct of planned activities from the very beginning and encourage the young person to take responsibility for their implementation as well as providing advice and support to the young person in overcoming possible obstacles.

Finding and keeping employment is a particularly important aspect of the project. HHC assistance consists of cooperating with employers that have vacant posts and the HHC experience demonstrates that employers are willing to give young people who grew up in institutions a chance. However, assistance in this area does not end when these young people fi nd employment since there are often cases where follow-up, guidance and counselling for the young person is needed so that he/she can successfully adapt to the requirements of the working environment, develop the work habit and keep the employment.

The foreseen (average) duration of assistance to a young person upon leaving an institution is 12 months; yet the entire support process is longer because this work begins when the young person is still in the institution (evaluation, planning, preparation). In addition, after the assistance ends the young people always have the possibility, should they wish to do so, to visit the experts who worked with them in order to talk, exchange information and similar.

46 Since the Young Adult Support Project began up until the present 75 young people have been included in its implementation. SOS Children’s Village BiH Semi-independent Living Programme

The SOS Children’s Village has considerable experience in providing care for young people after they turn 18, in preparing them for independent living and providing continued care services. The Semi-independent Living Programme represents a basic form of continued care by the SOS Children’s Villages. The overall aim of this phase is the gradual and harmonious transfer of young people to entirely independent living and their ability to take full responsibility for leading their lives. Normally this process follows a period of placement in the Youth House (where young people live until they reach maturity and or until they fi nish secondary school). The duration of this process varies (maximum three years, while for students the process lasts until the end of their studies), because it supports the fulfi lment of individual potential, after which the young person should be able to continue to lead a completely independent life.

To enter the Semi-independent Living Programme a young person has to be an adult, to have completed secondary school education or some form of qualifi cation, be employed/receive a steady income or be a student. The SOS Children’s Villages motivate and encourage young people to continue with university education. Also, the young person has to have a recommendation and the consent of his/her main educator, manager of the Youth House and the consent of his/her SOS parent. Then the young person signs a contract with the organisation that marks the start of the programme.

A vision that all children under the care of the SOS Children’s Villages will be able to live as independent adults is achieved by working in several fi elds, namely career building, providing employment, providing income and permanent living space, development of social skills needed to acquire and or develop social competencies and by achieving emotional stability.

The young person, together with his/her educator, seeks the best solution as to where to live during the semi- independent period of life (own apartment, rented apartment, student dorm or similar). He/she maintains regular contact with his/her main educator and the programme defi nes the dynamics of visits: a minimum of once a month during the course of the fi rst year and at least six times per year during the second and the third year. Contact between the main educator and the young person is more frequent if deemed necessary, while contact with the SOS parent is encouraged and supported. The main educator gives emotional support and counselling to the young person and support in fi nding employment if the young person is unemployed as well as active support in setting goals for individual development planning and their completion. He/she also monitors how the young person spends the money he/she receives from the SOS Children’s Village and whether the terms of the semi-independent living contract are being respected.

During the Semi-independent Living Programme the young person can receive regular fi nancial support, if deemed necessary and if the young person cannot achieve the minimum living standards with his/her personal income. During this period the amount of fi nancial support should be gradually decreased so that the young person will fi nally become completely fi nancially independent, a couple of months before the end of the programme.

Since 2005, when the implementation of the Semi-independent Living Programme started, more than 50 young persons have been involved in the programme. Currently 40 young persons are recipients of support from the programme.

47 6. Children without Parental Care: Situation up until the end of 2009

The analysis of the situation at the end of 2009 may serve as the basis for planning future actions concerning the protection of children without parental care in accordance with the directions given in the Policy. It should be noted that not all data on children within the public care system in 2009 was submitted, as previously mentioned in chapter 4 under Result Indicators.

This study has included a total of 1,27921 children without parental care in the FBiH who were in the child protection system at the end of 2009.22 Personal data was submitted on these children through the Questionnaire for centres for social work/social protection services for collection of data on children without parental care and the Questionnaire for care institutions for children without parental care aimed at collecting data on children without parental care. Discrepancy in the total number of children without parental care at the end of 2009 in Table 4.1.1 (total number 1,254 children) and in the total number of children in the following tables (total number 1,279) occurred due to the fact that the Sarajevo Canton Centre for Social Work in did not provide information on children without parental care in Sarajevo Canton. However, some of the children from Sarajevo, whose information was provided by the children’s institutions that took part in the study, were included in the study.

Table 6.1 shows the gender and age structure of the children.

Table 6.1: Gender and age structure of children without parental care at the end of 2009

0-3 4-5 6-10 11-15 16-18 18+ TOTAL 684 BOYS 25 24 102 248 178 107 (53.52%) 594 GIRLS 26 18 84 189 163 114 (46.47%) 52 42 186 437 341 221 TOTAL 1,279 (3.90%) (3.28%) (14.54%) (34.16%) (26.66%) (17.27%)

The largest number of children without parental care (456 or 35.65%) were institutionalised, somewhat less were under kinship care (451 or 35.26%) and then in family-based institutions (304 or 23.76%), whereas the smallest number of children were placed with non-relative foster families (68 or 5.31%). Table 6.2 shows the age structure of children in diff erent types of care.

Table 6.2: Age structure of children without parental care in diff erent types of care at the end of 2009

0-3 4-5 6-10 11-15 16-18 18+ TOTAL INSTITUTIONAL 456 42 28 102 148 84 52 MODEL (35.65%) 304 FAMILY MODEL 4 6 46 136 76 36 (23.76%) NON-RELATIVE 68 3 2 11 23 12 17 FOSTER CARE (5.31%) 451 KINSHIP CARE 3 6 27 130 169 116 (35.26%)

21 Nine children from Republika Srpska who were placed in institutions in the FBiH are included here. 22 Data on children was collected up until mid-November 2009.

48 Over 50% of children were separated from their parents for only one reason; approximately 35% were recorded for two reasons, while three or more reasons were identifi ed in 7.66% of children without parental care. For 25 children there was no data on the reasons for their separation. The frequency of the reasons for the occurrence of the separation of children from their parents is shown in Table 6.3.

Table 6.3: Reasons for the frequency of the occurrence of the separation of children from their birth families

REASONS FOR SEPARATION FREQUENCY One or both parents deceased 538 One or both parents abandoned the child 456 Child neglect 279 Diffi cult fi nancial situation 238 Illness of one or both parents 191 One or both parents unknown 113 Illness of the child 51 Child molestation 47

The Study has shown that there is no effi cient records system for recording the contact that children without parental care have with their relatives. For more than 30% of children (411) who were within the public care system at the end of 2009 the competent centres for social work/social protection services and the institutions in which the children were placed did not have any data on their number of contact in 2009. Table 6.4 shows the frequency of occurrence of contact that the children had with their relatives (the ones that were accounted for).

Table 6.4: Frequency of occurrence of contact that children without parental care had with their relatives in 2009

No. OF CONTACTS IN 2009 No. OF CHILDREN No contacts 86 Up to 5 contacts 201 From 6 to 10 contacts 68 Over 11 contacts 62 Children placed in kinship care 451

A ce rtain number of children without parental care required specifi c care due to their specifi c needs (developmental disabilities). Table 6.5 shows the number of children without parental care with registered special needs.

Table 6.5: Special needs registered in children without parental care in 2009

SPECIAL NEEDS No. OF CHILDREN Mild mental retardation 61 Hearing and speech impairment 38 No special needs recorded, but still suspected 37 Hearing damage 21 Profound mental retardation 17

49 Moderate mental retardation 16 Motor skills disorder 14 Damaged sight 12 Severe mental retardation 12 Physical disability 11 Chronic illness 9

50 7. Conclusions and Recommendations zThe Policy for the Protection of Children without Parental Care and Families at Risk of Separation in 2006-2016 was adopted by the Government of the FBiH in January 2008, which is when all implementation activities formally began. Direct guidelines for Policy implementation were not provided by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Policy (as agreed during the formulation and adoption of the Policy). As a consequence, these activities have been limited to a declarative endorsement of the Policy and the individual eff orts of staff from various institutions that recognised the importance of this document and tried to intensify the activities planned by the Policy in accordance with available fi nance. Only 27 centres for social work/social protection services (less than half) stated that they were familiar with the Policy and only 14 of them have implemented activities in accordance with this document. Only fi ve centres (from diff erent cantons) indicated that they had received Policy-based recommendations for their work from the competent cantonal ministries. Therefore, it is recommended to create an Action Plan that will defi ne activities, time frames and the bearers of the activities as well as terms of reference for the bodies envisaged by the Policy. zThe Policy foresees that the main bearers of the reform should be the Coordination Body on the FBiH level, the Expert Groups and the Planning and Action Groups in the regions/cantons: bodies that are yet to be established. Since the Coordination Body should be of vital importance for the reform process and the driving force behind all activities it is necessary to work on its creation as soon as possible. As set out in the Policy, members of the Coordination Body are proposed by the FBiH Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and UNICEF. zPrior to the creation of the Action Plan it will be necessary to conduct an analysis of how the institutions that are supposed to implement the activities function as well as an analysis of the staff structure within the institutions and detailed cost analyses for the implementation of the Policy. zThe study shows that, in general, there has been no progress in the recording procedures for children without parental care. Although some institutions (centres for social work/social protection services/child care institutions) keep records which allow for the easy collection of all necessary information on children without parental care it is evident that there is no effi cient system for keeping track of social protection benefi ciaries in the FBiH. In the immediate future it will be necessary to work on improving this system since it is not merely one of the tasks defi ned by the Policy but also a precondition for the implementation of other activities foreseen by the Policy. It is suggested to conduct an in-depth analysis of existing databases on children without parental care and children at risk of separation in order to see if some of the databases/ systems in institutions could be used more widely or if it is necessary to create a new database/system. If the creation of a new database/system is needed then the methodology used in this situation analysis could serve as the basis for the creation of a database that could be used by all relevant institutions in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. zAlthough the data on children without parental care resulting from this study is incomplete, there was no obvious continuous decrease in the number of children separated from their biological families for the period from 2005 to 2009. In addition, there was no progress in record keeping and nor was there a systemic, methodologically harmonised, approach towards evaluating the level of risk concerning separation, which is an issue that needs attention. Six centres for social work stated that they have tried to intensify their work with families at risk of separation since the adoption of the Policy, but there is no harmonised approach towards the planning, provision and evaluation of services for family empowerment. The method in which the provided services will be classifi ed, recorded and monitored in the future needs to be harmonised at the FBiH level. This study has shown that over the period from 2005 to 2009, 60% of children were separated from their parents for

51 only one reason and that at the end of 2009 in excess of 50% of children were separated from their parents for only one reason within the public care system. Prevention of separation is an important element that needs to be taken into consideration and this data demonstrates that the provision of systematic support for families at risk of separation can have substantial results, because most families have only one risk factor. It is necessary to develop community-based social services (such as day-care, parenting education and home support for children with disabilities) to ensure that children grow up within a family environment.

zAlso, the data collected by this study does not show a decrease in the number of children placed in childcare institutions up until 2009, despite the fact that a large number of young people became independent and left the institutions. When considering the number of children of a certain age who were placed in institutions we cannot see a considerable diff erence among the years covered by the study. There is still a tendency to place younger children in institutions, which is unacceptable having in mind the importance that the fi rst three years have on a child’s development (as demonstrated by experience and extensive research). At the end of 2009 most children of this age were institutionalised (46 children, out of which 42 were in large institutions totalling 52 children under 3 years of age). It is necessary to urgently explore the possibilities for a more adequate alternative form of care for these children as well as those institutionalised children from other age groups (714 children).

zUp until now there has been no division of the budget for childcare into two parts: one to support preventive work with families and the other to support alternative care for those children who are already within the public care system. Since this is one of the important premises for setting up and maintaining a new care system for children without parental care, as required by the Policy, it is necessary to divide the budget in such a way as to include budget lines for the prevention of separation and alternative forms of care.

zThe study shows a considerably higher number of adopted children than was expected based on previously available data. Considering that the current number of applications for adoption in FBiH is 1,162 and continuously growing, it is necessary to determine why some children that were placed in care at an early age reach adulthood in institutions and foster families.

zDuring the period from 2005 to 2009 there was no increase in the number of children without parental care placed with foster families. The majority of children were placed in kinship care. Non-relative foster care is insuffi ciently developed and specialised care as a form of care does not exist formally. In the coming period it will be very important to work on the legal regulation of foster care as well as on the professionalization and the development of various forms of foster care, as the Policy prefers this form of alternative care for children without parental care.

zThe study has shown that, in general, there has been no increase in the number of institutionalised children provided with a family environment, while a small increase in the number of children who returned to their birth families was marked over the period from 2005 to 2009.

zOver the aforementioned period a reduction in the average duration of children’s stay in institutions before returning to their birth families was recorded, while the average duration of children’s stay in institutions before adoption remains relatively unchanged at six to sixteen months. However, some children reached adulthood after being institutionalised for a very long period: from 14 and a half to 19 and a half years. At the end of 2009 50% of institutionalised children had been in institutions for longer than fi ve years, while about 20% had stayed for more than 10 years. In the coming period it will be necessary to make a detailed assessment of institutionalised children and work on fi nding family-based forms of care.

52 zThe study has shown that the system for recording contact that children without parental care have with their birth families and relatives is ineffi cient. Based on available data, it is evident that the average annual level of contact of children with their relatives increased in 2009 when compared to data from 2005. In the coming period it will be necessary to intensify eff orts aimed maintaining and increasing children’s established contact with their relatives and at the same time to improve the record keeping system for such contact. Also, it is necessary to explore possibilities for reuniting siblings placed in diff erent institutions or families (22% of children). zIt has become evident that no individual protection plans were made for approximately 70% of children who were within the public care system at the end of 2009. In addition, there is a lack of quality and promptness in regard to the creation and review of needs analysis and protection plans. It will be necessary over the coming period to make detailed needs analyses for children without parental care at risk of separation as well as to create protection plans with the participation of all relevant persons: the child, his/her birth family members, relatives and other persons important to the child. zAlmost 25% of children without parental care were aged between 15 and 18 years of age, while about 8% of young people without parental care, aged over 18, were registered within the public care system at the end of 2009. This piece of information indicates that there is a great need for the development of a system of support for young people in becoming independent and, in particular, a need to develop legal regulations covering the types, manner and duration of support to be provided to young people without parental care after they turn 18. To date, support for young people leaving residential facilities for children without parental care has often been left up to those facilities and with no systematic support provided by other relevant entities. zA proportional increase in the number of children within the social protection system whose mental and physical development, gained skills, knowledge and relations with their family and community have improved over the course of the past years is one of the result indicators set forth under the Policy. In the upcoming period it will be necessary to design and or compile adequate psychological instruments to be used as a standard set of instruments for assessing the progress of children in all aspects. zWhen planning and executing activities within the Policy implementation process it would be useful to consider examples of the practices of other stakeholders and integrate them, either partially or fully, into the reformed system of protection for children without parental care and families at risk of separation. zTo ensure implementation of the Policy it will be necessary to decrease the level of reliance upon institutional care for children without parental care and focus on the prevention of separation and the use of alternative forms of care as well as ensuring its adequate fi nancing, implementation and monitoring. zThe media should be involved in the implementation of the policy as they can play a vital role in raising awareness concerning the importance of growing up within a family environment and the promotion of alternative forms of care for children without parental care, as stipulated by the Policy.

53 54 55 56