Cost of Care and Redirection of Resources

Developing a high quality alternative care system requires adequate funding and resources. In countries that are working to reform their care systems, efforts are needed to redirect financing from residential care options towards new initiatives that support parents, prevent family separation, and provide children with a range of family and community based care alternatives.

Cost-benefit studies of different forms of alternative care demonstrate that it makes good economic sense for governments to invest in family based alternatives rather than residential care. While costs may increase for a temporary period as countries make the shift to family-based care – for example to fund training of social workers, develop social welfare services and establish tracing and foster programmes – in the long run it costs less than keeping children in institutions where funds are required to pay salaries for staff, maintain buildings and provide food and other services. The bottom line is that for the cost of keeping one child in residential care, many more girls and boys can be supported within families.

Funding for care reform involves allocating (or redirecting) resources from institutional care towards a range of family-based care services, investing in the development of a competent social welfare workforce, supporting carers, and providing financial and practical support to children leaving care. It also means investing in programmes that tackle the factors that lead to family separation and children being placed in alternative care – such as poverty, unemployment, disability, health and conflict. This could include promoting access to basic health, education and housing services, developing social protection and financial assistance initiatives, and working to strengthen families through parenting education or counselling.

Governments also need to make a commitment to putting in place licensing and regulation mechanisms to ensure that funding of care is motivated by children’s best interest rather than the financial benefit of the provider – and that resources are directed towards families rather than institutions. Unfortunately in many countries, there are vested interests in admitting or keeping children within formal care (particularly residential facilities) for profit-making, and large numbers of private care facilities operate outside the control of authorities.

The literature in this section focuses on budget and cost analysis pertaining to children’s care, including preventive services to support family based care and the provision of a range of alternative care options.

Displaying 61 - 70 of 180

Browse Other Topics

Family Resource Center System Development Funder Continuum

National Family Support Network, 24 Sep 2019

This guide from the National Family Support Network provides a brief outline of suggested steps for funders to invest in Family Resource Centers, including resources from the National Family Support Network for each step.

Funding Supports and Services for Young People Transitioning from Foster Care

Lynn Tiede and Kristina Rosinsky - Child Trends, 01 Sep 2019

This report draws on interviews the authors conducted with 19 child welfare leaders in eight jurisdictions to highlight how jurisdictions are using existing funding sources to serve this population and examine the funding challenges they continue to face.

Outcome and Cost-Savings Data for Selected Types of Family Support Services: A Summary for Orange County Social Services

Peter J. Pecora and Paul DiLorenzo - Casey Family Programs, 30 Jul 2019

This document from Casey Family Programs reviews data on Family Resource Centers and other family support services in the US.

Unprotected: Crisis in Humanitarian Funding for Child Protection

The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, Save the Children International, Child Protection Area of Responsibility, 12 Jul 2019

This desk review provides a picture of funding for the child protection sector over the period 2010–2018. The authors highlight funding trends, main donors and recipients, and examine funding levels in comparison to financial requirements in a selection of countries in 2018.

Unprotected: Crisis in humanitarian funding for child protection

Save the Children, Child Protection Area of Responsibility (CP AoR) and The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action, 12 Jul 2019

This desk review provides a picture of funding for the child protection sector over the period 2010–2018.

Forecasting Future Outcomes: Stronger Communities Investment Unit — 2018 Insights Report

Taylor Fry - Government of NSW, Their Futures Matter, 05 Jul 2019

This report, which was authored by Taylor Fry with support from Their Futures Matter (TFM) - a landmark reform of the Government of New South Wales (NSW), Australia to deliver improved outcomes for vulnerable children, young people and their families - and stakeholder agencies, presents key results and insights from the TFM Investment Model, an actuarial model of future outcomes and costs of providing key government services to children and young people in NSW.

Lumos’ recommendations to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Lumos, 01 Jul 2019

This statement from Lumos outlines the organization's recommendations to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development regarding the institutionalization of children.

Be the Change! Leave No Care Leaver Behind! Call to Action

SOS Children’s Villages International , 13 Jun 2019

The content of this Call to Action comes from what was heard from young people with care experience as well as from the professionals working with them. It outlines three primary actions to realize careleavers' rights in the law and in practice and to allocate adequate funds for realizing these rights.

Caseload Reductions in New York City – An Impact Assessment

Fred Wulczyn, Sara Feldman, and Scott Huhr - Center for State Child Welfare Data, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 01 Apr 2019

For this evaluation, the authors asked whether the rate of exit to permanency increased for children whose time in foster care in New York City coincided with when private foster care agencies reached the new reduced caseload target.

Improving Outcomes for Transitional Youth: Considerations for Pay for Success Projects

Mayookha Mitra-Majumdar, Keith Fudge, Kriti Ramakrishnan - Urban Institute, 01 Mar 2019

This brief summarizes insights drawn from Community of Practice conversations and provides recommendations for local governments, service providers, and other partners considering Pay for success (PFS) as a tool for financing interventions serving transitional youth.