DOCSLIB.ORG

Children in Residential Care and Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Children in Residential Care and Alternatives Good practice CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES for people working with children Children in Residential Care and Alternatives CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES: VOLUME 5 AUTHORS Glenn Miles – Children at Risk Advisor, Cambodia Paul Stephenson – Child Development Advisor, Tearfund EDITOR Fiona Anderson – Freelance writer CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES Contents Preface 4 SECTION 1: Introduction 5 What are families? 7 Who are the orphans? 8 What is residential care? 9 What kind of children are in residential care? 11 What are the alternatives to residential care? 14 SECTION 2: Framework for Good Practice 17 1 Building relationships 19 2 Parental responsibilities 19 3 Working at different levels 19 4 Identifying needs and priorities 20 5 Children’s participation 22 6 Children in context 23 7 Advocacy 25 8 Child-sensitive indicators 28 SECTION 3: Case Studies 29 Rainbow Home, Christian Care for Children with Disabilities, Thailand 32 The Valley of Blessing Educational and Beneficent Association, Brazil 35 Eglise Trinité Internationale, Burundi 38 VOLUME 5: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ALTERNATIVES 2 CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES Inkuru Nziza Church, Rwanda 42 Home of Joy, Christian Growth Ministries, Philippines 45 Dar El Awlad Boys Home, Lebanon 49 SECTION 4: The Reflective Question Tool 53 SECTION 5: References and Resources 61 What to read 63 Who to contact 66 How to order 68 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Tearfund UK would like to thank the Laing Trust for their generous financial support on this project, and the following people for reading and commenting on the draft version: Jonathan Baddock, Near East Home, Lebanon Henry Bell, Near East Home, Lebanon Kate Bristow – Programme Development Team, Tearfund Graham Fawcett, Psychologist, YWAM, UK Jonathan Fisher, Tearfund Board/UK Department of Social Services Flor Jaotjot, Christian Growth Ministries, Philippines Meg Lindsay, Centre for Residential Child Care, UK Rose Mukankaka, AMU, Rwanda Sheila Melot, Freelance Editor Mick Pease, Leeds Social Services Lea Peters, ETI, Burundi Patrick Phillips, Advisor BESO, Senior Social Services Officer, UK Rachel Poulton, OP worker, Laos ex-Zaire John Stamp, Dept of Social Services, UK Silas Tostes, Valley of Blessing, Brazil Gundelina Velazio, Psychologist, Philippines Ian de Villiers, Viva Network Adrian Watkins, Intermission, India/EMA, UK Keith White, Childcare Network Dan Young, LAM/Viva Network VOLUME 5: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ALTERNATIVES 3 CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES Preface What are the principles of good practice in the area of Child Development and how can we implement them? This series sets out the basic principles of Tearfund’s Child Development Policy, and then seeks to apply them in different contexts. Here in Volume 5 we look at children in residential care and some of the alternatives available. We recommend that you use this framework in conjunction with the Tearfund Child Development Study Pack (for details of how to order the study pack and other volumes see the final page). The study emerges from comprehensive field research and dialogue and has been reviewed by a variety of experts and practitioners. The authors hope and pray that you will find it useful and practical, and that for all who are working with children it will help you in changing children’s lives for the better. Glenn Miles and Paul Stephenson January 2001 A note about GLENN MILES is Tearfund’s Children at Risk Facilitator for Cambodia, involved in the authors developing partnerships with organisations, training and research with children at risk. He has researched sexual exploitation in India, Sri Lanka and Thailand. He has over ten years experience in child health and welfare focused on South and Southeast Asia, and he has two children of his own. PAUL STEPHENSON currently works as Tearfund’s Child Development Advisor. He has seven years experience of development and relief in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe, and has a background in education, community development and programme evaluation. Copyright Tearfund’s learning materials and case studies may be adapted and reproduced for use, provided the materials are distributed free of charge. Full reference should be given to Tearfund and the relevant authors within the materials. NOTE The terms First and Third Worlds, developed and developing countries have been used interchangeably throughout the text as commonly accepted terminology for industrialised and developing countries. VOLUME 5: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ALTERNATIVES 4 Good practice CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES for people working with children SECTION 1 Introduction Contents What are families? 7 Who are the orphans? 8 What is residential care? 9 What kind of children are in residential care? 11 What are the alternatives to residential care? 14 VOLUME 5: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ALTERNATIVES 5 CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES VOLUME 5: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ALTERNATIVES 6 CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES Introduction 1 WHAT ARE FAMILIES? The family means different things to different people. How it is defined will depend on world view, background and experience. The family means The extended interdependent family structures which feature in much of the Biblical different things to narrative are far more similar to rural families in developing countries than to the different people. fragmented nuclear family of Europe and North America. Hebrew families in the Old Testament were grouped together in houses. These houses were united by marriage and kinship to form clans; several clans constituted a tribe and the confederation of tribes made up Israel. An interdependent Hebrew household comprised between fifty and a hundred people. In the New Testament, Paul describes the church as a family. The early church met in households. Those baptised, according to Paul, have been adopted by God (Romans 8:15-17, Galatians 3:26-4:6). Their siblings are other Christians. Their inheritance is the community of believers (Mark 10:28-31). But although the family took precedence over all other relationships, it was not closed or introspective. Hospitality was extended as if to near and distant relatives. The New Testament church was to reach out to the Gentiles and to everyone, even to enemies. The family structure of modern times, both in the more developed and in developing countries, can vary considerably. As Christians we must be careful not to judge a family by its appearance and consider it to be ‘unsuitable’ without considering what the essence of a family is. Relationships rather than structure have a greater impact on the ability of children to grow spiritually, emotionally and socially.1 God created the covenant marriage relationship so that a couple can bear the ‘fruit’ of children. These children are then able to receive individual unconditional acceptance and love in adult-child relationships. This is portrayed in the story of the prodigal son which reflects the unconditional love of the heavenly father. In the context of this unconditional love, children can be brought up to love God and serve others. As ‘fallen’ beings, our parenting is often inadequate. Yet children are often resilient and, for all its failings, the parent/caregiver relationship can sustain and nurture the child and help him or her to grow. 1 Katz (1997). VOLUME 5: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ALTERNATIVES 7 CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES Not all children, however, are resilient enough to cope with damaging family behaviour in its extreme form. Some can become psychologically and even physically traumatised as a result. They may then need to be removed from their family environment. In a small number of cases children may be unable to face living in a family home so that even alternative foster care may not be appropriate. See Children at Risk Guidelines 1: Children and Family Breakdown for more discussion on the family. WHO ARE THE ORPHANS? Scripture makes specific mention of the needs of widows and orphans. Both the New and Old Testaments refer to responsibilities towards orphans and the fatherless. God is seen as the defender of the fatherless (Deuteronomy 10:18, Psalm 10:14, 68:5, Jeremiah 49:11, Hosea 14:3) and the covenant community are encouraged to be compassionate to them (Exodus 22:27). The Israelites were strongly encouraged to aid orphans or take them into their families (Job 29:12, 31:17). The early church continued concern for orphans, expressed in James 1:27 where a ‘pure and faultless’ religion was characterised by those who ‘look after orphans and widows’. Historically, most Historically and geographically, even in extremely difficult circumstances, most ‘orphaned’ ‘orphaned’ children are absorbed into their extended families, however tenuous the children are relationship, and also into other families in their communities without the absorbed into involvement of any outside agent. their extended But as traditional religious and cultural values break down – and this is particularly families. true in urban settings – people may be more reluctant to adopt children. This was shown to be true in a survey conducted in Thailand by Christian Care of Children with Disabilities (CCD), see SECTION 3, and Handicap International. Certain cultures may feel they have evolved in such a way that adoption is no longer a feasible strategy. However, other commentators believe that there will always be families able and willing to adopt and foster children. Where secular society is slow to do this, Christians should take a lead, challenging attitudes and working to ensure that children are matched with families.2 2 Pease (1998) and Poulton (1995). VOLUME 5: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE AND ALTERNATIVES 8 CHILDREN AT RISK GUIDELINES WHAT IS RESIDENTIAL CARE? Residential care Residential care can be defined as ‘a group living arrangement for children in which care is group care by is remunerated by adults who would not be regarded as traditional carers within the generally wider society’.3 However, this definition has been criticised because some institutions unrelated involve ‘self’ remunerated people in charge and others such as monasteries (eg Buddhist persons.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Long-Term Care Workforce Crisis: a 2020 Report
    The Long-Term Care Workforce Crisis: A 2020 Report Results from a survey of long-term care providers in 2016 and 2018 exposed a caregiver workforce crisis. Data from the 2020 survey of 924 providers, together with information from other sources revealed: n An increase in caregiver vacancies from 19% in 20181 to 23.5% in 2020 n A continued downward trend in the number of persons on the Wisconsin nurse aide registry2 n Caregiver vacancy rates in excess of 30% for adult family homes, a vital part of the long-term care continuum n One in three providers are limiting admissions due to caregiver vacancies n Since 2018, inflation has increased by 4%3 while median wages for direct care workers have been limited to only 2.3% growth n The average occupancy of long-term and residential care providers could increase from 78% to 93% if there were enough caregivers to fill available positions n Long-term care providers continue to be challenged with a lack of applicants for caregiving positions Clearly the caregiver workforce crisis continues to be one of the most significant challenges facing providers of long-term and residential care services. Public and private efforts to deal with the workforce needs have helped but more needs to be done - especially as the state faces growth in the number of older persons, people with intellectual and physical disabilities, and individuals diagnosed with dementia. Wisconsin Health Care Association Wisconsin Center for Assisted Living PROJECTION OF WI POPULATION WITH DEMENTIA 242,000 The Need for Long-Term 216,000 184,000 154,000 Care is Growing 129,000 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 The number of Wisconsin residents diagnosed with dementia is projected to increase 88% by 2040 Over the next 20 years, the percentage of people age Source: Wisconsin Department of Heatlh Services 85 and older will climb, as will the number of persons diagnosed with dementia.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Care Communities and Their Residents in 2010: a National Portrait March 2016
    Residential Care Communities and Their Residents in 2010: A National Portrait March 2016 SERVICES AN • U M S U.S. Department of U A H & Health and Human Services H T L A Centers for Disease Control E H F O and Prevention T N E M T R National Center for A P E D Health Statistics Authors & Production Contact Information RTI International For e-mail updates on NCHS publication Galina Khatutsky, MS releases, subscribe online at: Catherine Ormond, MS http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/govdelivery.htm Joshua M. Wiener, PhD For questions or general information: Angela M. Greene, MBA, MS National Center for Health Statistics Ruby Johnson, MA, MS 3311 Toledo Road E. Andrew Jessup Room 5419 Emily Vreeland, BA Hyattsville, MD 20782 National Center for Health Statistics, Tel: 1–800–CDC–INFO (1–800–232–4636) Long-Term Care Statistics Branch TTY: 1–888–232–6348 Internet: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs Manisha Sengupta, PhD Online request form: http://www.cdc.gov/info Christine Caffrey, PhD Lauren Harris-Kojetin, PhD Copyright Information Suggested Citation All material appearing in this report is in the Khatutsky G, Ormond C, Wiener JM, Greene AM, Johnson public domain and may be reproduced or R, Jessup EA, Vreeland E, Sengupta M, Caffrey C, Harris- Kojetin L. Residential care communities and their residents in copied without permission; citation as to 2010: A national portrait. DHHS Publication No. 2016-1041. source, however, is appreciated. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2016. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to Emily Rosenoff of The authors express their gratitude to the the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Care and Living Options
    Common Care and Living Options The more we know about our healthcare options the better we can all prepare for our future and the future of our loved ones. When it comes to care options for seniors and the elderly, there are boundless amounts of information on the internet that can overwhelm and confuse. Following is a quick reference guide to assist you in understanding the most common care and living options. Skilled Care vs. Custodial Care Home Care vs. Home Health Care Regardless of the location in which it is provided, These terms are sometimes used interchangeably, at the highest level there are two types of care, skilled care and custodial care. Skilled care but there is an important distinction. While both types of care are provided in the individual's describes services that can be given only by skilled or licensed medical personnel. Custodial care (also home, home care generally means custodial or unskilled care is being provided. For example, called non-skilled care) helps with activities of assistance is provided with bathing and dressing daily living (ADLs), such as bathing, dressing and the individual, help with laundry, cooking and eating. Custodial care is typical for seniors with Alzheimer's or dementia. Both skilled and accompanying them to doctors’ appointments or on other errands. One may also hear this type of custodial care can be provided at home, in adult care referred to as personal care or attendant day care or in a residential care setting such as a nursing home, assisted living community or adult care although those terms are not exclusively for foster care home.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Title 9. Health Services Chapter 10. Department of Health Services Health Care Institutions: Licensing Article 8. Assisted Li
    This document contains an unofficial version of the new rules in 9 A.A.C. 10, Article 1, effective November 5, 2019. TI TLE 9. HEALTH SERVI CES CHAPTER 10. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVI CES HEALTH CARE I NSTI TUTI ONS: LI CENSI NG ARTICLE 8. ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES Section R9-10-801. Definitions R9-10-802. Supplemental Application Requirements R9-10-803. Administration R9-10-804. Quality Management R9-10-805. Contracted Services R9-10-806. Personnel R9-10-807. Residency and Residency Agreements R9-10-808. Service Plans R9-10-809. Transport; Transfer R9-10-810. Resident Rights R9-10-811. Medical Records R9-10-812. Behavioral Care R9-10-813. Behavioral Health Services R9-10-814. Personal Care Services R9-10-815. Directed Care Services R9-10-816. Medication Services R9-10-817. Food Services R9-10-818. Emergency and Safety Standards R9-10-819. Environmental Standards R9-10-820. Physical Plant Standards 1 This document contains an unofficial version of the new rules in 9 A.A.C. 10, Article 1, effective November 5, 2019. ARTICLE 8. ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES R9-10-801. Definitions In addition to the definitions in A.R.S. § 36-401 and R9-10-101, the following definitions apply in this Article, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. “Accept” or “acceptance” means: a. An individual begins living in and receiving assisted living services from an assisted living facility; or b. An individual begins receiving adult day health care services or respite care services from an assisted living facility. 2. “Assistant caregiver” means an employee or volunteer who helps a manager or caregiver provide supervisory care services, personal care services, or directed care services to a resident, and does not include a family member of the resident.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Long-Term Care Settings in Oregon, 2019
    Comparison of Long-term Care Settings in Oregon, 2019 Assisted Living Residential Memory Care Adult Foster Nursing (AL) Care (RC) (MC) Homes (AFH) Facilities (NF) Number of facilities 227* 297* 186 1,584 136 Total capacity (beds) 15,264 11,510 6,574 7,064 11,102 Average licensed capacity per facility 67 27 35 3.9 82 Minimum number of licensed beds 12 4 8 1 5 Maximum number of licensed beds 180 165 114 5 214 Average occupancy rate 77% 75% 85% 84% 67% Facility size Less than 50 beds 26% 79% 78% 100% 15% 50−99 beds 65% 15% 22% – 52% 100−149 beds 9% 4% <1% – 24% More than 149 beds <1% 1% – – 10% Resident characteristics White, non-Hispanic 91% 91% 87% 86% 84% African American or Black <1% 2% 1% 2% 2% Hispanic 1% 1% 2% 3% 2% Other or unknown race/Ethnicity 6% 3% 5% 8% 11% Female 71% 65% 73% 62% 57% Age 65−84 41% 41% 47% 40% 53% Age 85+ 53% 47% 50% 38% 28% Assistance with Activities of Daily Living (ADLs)† Eating 4% 10% 26% 27% 54% Dressing 37% 51% 83% 60% 97% Bathing 55% 68% 92% 80% 97% Using the bathroom 32% 39% 78% 53% 96% Walking/Mobility‡ 24% 28% 48% 47% 96%/93% Chronic medical conditions Alzheimer’s disease/dementia 27% 38% 97% 46% 20% Hypertension 53% 52% 47% 48% 72% Depression 30% 36% 34% 40% 36% Serious mental health illness 5% 12% 6% 19% 15%§ Diabetes 22% 23% 15% 21% 35% Cancer 9% 9% 7% 8% 12% Osteoporosis 21% 20% 20% 18% 12% Arthritis 32% 27% 31% 36% 27% * This figure includes all AL or RC settings, including those with MC units.
    [Show full text]
  • I [email protected] I +61 (0)403 423 352
    FACT SHEET: CHILDREN IN RESIDENTIAL CARE INSTITUTIONS Quick facts • Up to 8 million children live in institutions globally, despite the fact that approximately 80% of these children have family who could care for them given the right support. • Over the last decade there’s been a 75% increase in the numbers of orphanages in Cambodia and the number of children living in orphanages has nearly doubled. • In Sri Lanka, the number of officially registered Residential Care Institutions increased from 142 in 1991 to 500 in 2007. That’s a 350% increase over a 16-year period. • In Zimbabwe, the number of children living in residential care has doubled since 1994. What is residential care? Residential care or institutionalisation of children refers to the placement of a child in a Residential Care Institution in order to access any kind of service. Residential Care Institutions are often referred to as orphanages, shelters or children’s homes / villages / centres. Child protection stakeholders prefer the term ‘Residential Care Institutions’ (RCI), as ‘orphanage’ incorrectly implies that resident children are orphans and have lost one or more parents. Key aspects of RCI facilities include: • Providing 24-hour care, including access to shelter, food, clothing and education, facilitated by paid caregivers. • Separating children from their families, where they are isolated from the broader community and/or compelled to live together in a group arrangement. Drivers of residential care Internal drivers: • Poverty: RCIs fill a niche in providing much-needed social support in developing countries with limited access to social services and community support services for vulnerable families.
    [Show full text]
  • Detecting, Addressing and Preventing Elder Abuse in Residential Care Facilities
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Detecting, Addressing and Preventing Elder Abuse In Residential Care Facilities Author: Catherine Hawes, Ph.D., Anne-Marie Kimbell, Ph.D. Document No.: 229299 Date Received: January 2010 Award Number: 2005-IJ-CX-0054 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. FINAL REPORT Detecting, Addressing and Preventing Elder Abuse In Residential Care Facilities Grant Number: 2005-IJ-CX-0054 Report to The National Institute of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Bethany L. Backes, M.P.H., M.S.W., C.H.E.S. Social Science Analyst and Project Officer Report from The Program on Aging & Long-Term Care Policy The School of Rural Public Health Texas A&M Health Science Center College Station, Texas November 2009 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Nursing Homes, Assisted Living Residences, and Residential Care Homes in Vermont
    COMPARING NURSING HOMES, ASSISTED LIVING RESIDENCES, AND RESIDENTIAL CARE HOMES IN VERMONT A CONSUMER GUIDE TO VT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES JANUARY 2020 A CONSUMER GUIDE TO VT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES (JANUARY 2020) INTRODUCTION As of January 1, 2020, there are 167 long-term care homes in Vermont. This number includes Nursing Homes (NHs), Assisted Living Residences (ALRs) and Residential Care Homes (RCHs). Together, these homes contain 6,417 licensed beds. For consumers, it can be hard to determine which kind of long-term care facility might be most appropriate for a given person. The purpose of this guide is to help consumers by: • Highlighting some of the key legal differences between NHs, ALRs, and RCHs in Vermont (Part I); and • Providing links to resources meant to help consumers evaluate long-term care facility options (Part II). To be clear, there are many legal differences between NHs, ALRs and RCHs. This guide highlights only differences under VT state laws in terms of: • How the facility-type is defined; • Restrictions on who can be a resident; • Restrictions on the level of care the facility can provide; • Facility staffing requirements; • Whether & when facility residents may be involuntary discharged; and • Whether & when the State may grant a “variance” from these rules. This guide is a joint publication of the Office of the Vermont Attorney General’s Elder Protection Initiative and Vermont’s Department of Disabilities, Aging and Independent Living. It is current as of January 1, 2020. 2 A CONSUMER GUIDE TO VT LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES (JANUARY 2020) KEEP IN MIND… As you review this guide, please keep in mind: • Not all NHs are the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Kinnected Faq
    AN INITIATIVE OF KINNECTED FAQ ACCI RELIEF 5 / 2-4 SARTON ROAD, CLAYTON VIC 3168, AUSTRALIA Phone: +61 3 8516 9600 Email: [email protected] ACCI RELIEF KINNECTED PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND ACCI Relief firmly believes that the best place for children to grow, develop and thrive is in a family. We believe that this is God’s design and the natural social unit charged with the care of children within every culture. We also recognise that there are many children and families who are in crisis which can leave children vulnerable, at risk and in need of support, or in some cases, in need of an alternative option to living with their biological family. These crises range from poverty related issues, abuse, disaster to conflict situations or the death of parents. ACCI Relief recognises that programs which seek to provide assistance and support to children should always prioritise options that keep children within their family. The use of residential care should be restricted to cases where family-based options are not safe or not in the best interests of each individual child. In practical terms, this means that when the issues due to poverty or other stressors are significantly affecting the functioning of the family, family preservation services should be offered to try to keep them together, rather than removing the child. In cases where a child is not safe in their family, or there is no family that can care for the child, then an alternative care arrangement should be explored. Alternative care options should reflect the continuum of care, which prioritises family-based alternative care over residential care (institutional care).
    [Show full text]
  • Assisted Living Communities
    Nathan Deal, Governor Frank W. Berry, Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner 2 Peachtree Street, NW | Atlanta, GA 30303-3159 | 404-656-4507 | www.dch.georgia.gov Disclaimer: This is an unofficial copy of the rules that has been reformatted for the convenience of the public by the Department of Community Health. The official rules for this program are on record with the Georgia Secretary of State’s office. The Secretary of State’s website for reviewing the rules is http://rules.sos.state.ga.us. Effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this unofficial copy. The Department reserves the right to withdraw or correct text in this copy if deviations from the official text as published by the Georgia Secretary of State are found. RULES OF DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH CHAPTER 111-8 HEALTHCARE FACILITY REGULATION CHAPTER 111-8-63 RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR ASSISTED LIVING COMMUNITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS 111-8-63-.01 Authority 111-8-63-.02 Purpose 111-8-63-.03 Definitions 111-8-63-.04 Exemptions 111-8-63-.05 Application for Permit 111-8-63-.06 Permits 111-8-63-.07 Owner Governance 111-8-63-.08 Community Leadership 111-8-63-.09 Workforce Qualifications, Training and Staffing 111-8-63-.10 Community Accountability 111-8-63-.11 Community Design and Use Requirements 111-8-63-.12 Community Furnishings 111-8-63-.13 Community Safety Precautions 111-8-63-.14 Emergency Preparedness 111-8-63-.15 Admission and Resident Retention 111-8-63-.16 Admission Agreements 111-8-63-.17 Services in the Community 111-8-63-.18 Requirements for Memory Care Services 111-8-63-.19
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Care/Assisted Living Compendium: Virginia
    Compendium of Residential Care and Assisted Living Regulations and Policy: 2015 Edition VIRGINIA Licensure Terms Assisted Living Facilities General Approach The Virginia Department of Social Services licenses two levels of care in assisted living facilities (ALFs): residential living care (minimal assistance) or assisted living care (at least moderate assistance). Facilities licensed to provide assisted living care may also provide residential care. Excluded from this licensure category are facilities licensed by the Virginia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services, and housing for persons age 62 or older that is financed by state or federal funds (e.g., by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). Facilities that care for adults with serious cognitive impairments who cannot recognize danger or ensure their own safety or welfare, must meet additional requirements; these requirements apply whether the facility serves only such individuals or when the resident population is mixed. Facilities licensed for ten or fewer residents, or that house no more than three residents with a serious cognitive impairment, are exempt from the requirements. Adult Foster Care (AFC). AFC is a program that provides room and board, supervision, and other services for up to three adults who have a physical or mental health condition, including an emotional or behavioral health issue. This setting is regulated through the Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services, Adult Protective Services Division. Regulatory provisions for AFC are not included in this profile but a link to the provisions can found at the end. This profile includes summaries of selected regulatory provisions for ALFs. The complete regulations are online at the links provided at the end.
    [Show full text]
  • Caregiving in the U.S. 2020
    RESEARCH REPORT MAY 2020 2020 Report Caregiving in the U.S. Conducted by Bottom left cover photo courtesy of Mediteraneo/stock.adobe.com. Acknowledgments The National Alliance for Caregiving (NAC) and AARP are proud to present Caregiving in the U.S. 2020. Many people played important roles throughout the research process, including: C. Grace Whiting, JD, President and Chief Executive Susan Reinhard, PhD, Senior Vice President Officer, National Alliance for Caregiving and Director, AARP Public Policy Institute Patrice A. Heinz, Vice President, Strategy & Lynn Friss Feinberg, MSW, Senior Strategic Operations, National Alliance for Caregiving Policy Advisor, AARP Public Policy Institute Gabriela Prudencio, MBA, Hunt Research Director, Laura Skufca, MA, Senior Research Advisor, National Alliance for Caregiving AARP Michael R. Wittke, BSW, MPA, Senior Director, Robert Stephen, MBA, Vice President, Health Public Policy and Advocacy, National Alliance for & Caregiving, AARP Programs Caregiving Rita Choula, MA, Director, Caregiving Projects, AARP Public Policy Institute ADVISORY PANEL María P. Aranda, PhD, Associate Professor and Executive Director, USC Edward R. Roybal Institute on Aging, USC Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work Joseph E. Gaugler, PhD, Robert L. Kane Endowed Chair in Long-Term Care and Aging and Professor, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota Carol Levine, MA, Senior Fellow, United Hospital Fund, New York City (former Director of UHF Families and Health Care Project) Feylyn Lewis, PhD, Research Fellow, University of Sussex David Lindeman, PhD, Director Health, Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS), UC Berkeley; Director, Center for Technology and Aging (CTA) Nancy E. Lundebjerg, MPA, Chief Executive Officer, American Geriatrics Society Steve Schwab, CEO, Elizabeth Dole Foundation (with special thanks to Laurel Rodewald) Regina A.
    [Show full text]