As the Government continues initiatives to resolve the thorny and urgent issues affecting the protection of children, hopefully it will do so holistically to achieve satisfactory standards of care in the shortest possible time. Efficiency by the Children’s Authority (CA) will go a long way.
In researching the role of the CA with those in several countries—Jamaica, the UK, Canada, and Barbados, to name a few, the CA appears to be a hybrid type of institution performing the roles of licensee and manager of children’s homes and halfway centres among many other functions. In Barbados, the children’s care scenario is different—smaller, and virtually all the homes are government controlled under a Child Care Board. In Jamaica, there is an Office of Children’s Advocate and a Child Protection and Family Services Agency. In other places such as the UK, and Canadian provinces there are children’s commissioners or ombudspersons in addition to national childcare institutions. From country to country, culture is different, but the aim and role of a “defender of children” are similar. The commissioners or ombudspersons ensure the rights, needs and interests of children are considered and acted upon by public and private bodies, individuals, and associations, and they promote compliance with the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. These offices are independent human rights institutions, defending children against maladministration of their affairs by any public or private body. They determine whether injustice was caused by improper, unreasonable, or inadequate administrative conduct, so there is generally an all-embracing approach toward children’s care and protection. Notably, there are common problems across countries, and chief among these are the recruitment of suitable staff and bureaucracy. (eg, A census of the children’s homes workforce–GOV.UK and A Comparative Analysis of Residential Care: A Five-Country Multiple Case-Design Study).
If our government is considering establishing such an office, the aim should be to improve the performance and accountability of the CA and the overall public administration of children’s affairs. It should not duplicate the CA’s work but should be a check on the CA.
It appears the CA conflicts with itself. It is mandated to license and investigate homes while simultaneously managing homes or halfway/reception centres. Children’s homes and centres controlled by the CA are not licenced, presumably on the assumption that as a state institution it will adhere to laws. History tells a tale here of non-adherence to laws by government ministries and institutions.
Any audit of the human resources function at the CA and its operations is likely to reveal structural employment problems with staff shortages in front line operations—where the tyre hits the road so to speak, and mismatches of skill sets with organisational needs. Obviously, it can’t handle the increasing caseloads, but the issue is much deeper than lack of human resources, as gleaned from recent comments by its past and current officials reported in this newspaper. Employees are not operationally or strategically aligned to perform the CAs many roles.
Clearly, there’s an urgent need to restructure toward ensuring role clarity and accountability. If it must manage and control children’s homes, it will be wise if it does not continue to perform the function of inspection. It should not be inspecting itself. Or the childcare units under its control should be transferred to another state agency or privately-run homes, more so as there are increasing demands for children’s residences.
In the 97 years since 1925, the only facility built by the Government for children was the Youth Training Centre for boys in conflict with the law. While adoption strategies should be the first call, there should be suitable family-size homes in well-maintained and relatively crime-free communities. There will always be a need for interventions because of parents’ deaths, incarceration, illness, or child abuse, human trafficking, wars, increasing numbers of migrant children, and poverty among other reasons. It is a complex multidimensional matter, and how we deal with children’s quality of life problems now will determine their future and the country’s well-being.
Laws concerning children should be reviewed. How does one rationalise age seven years as the age of criminal responsibility given all that we know about children’s conditions and influences? (Summary of Courts Act Chapter 4:20) There are health, psychological, socio-economic, domestic, and other reasons why the age to hold children criminally responsible should be raised.
Of importance to children in care are love, security, healthy trusting relationships, education, and a compassionate, supportive environment to learn, grow happily, and live healthy and productive lives.
In the name of children, we should accelerate efforts to deal with their matters holistically, urgently, and non-partisan.