This tool aims to assist practitioners to achieve the following objectives when providing technical support to transitioning institutions:

• Determine the feasibility of implementing a successful transition by taking into account the number of positive indicators and/or severity of risk indicators.
• Extract and analyze critical information that informs the approach and allows the practitioner to develop a strategic plan and budget for transition. 

The tool recognizes that because the starting point of each institution is different, there is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. Tailored strategies need to be developed for each individual transition process, taking into account their unique dynamics. The tool has therefore been designed as an assessment framework that assists practitioners to identify and analyze these key starting point dynamics and determine the implications for strategy. In other words, it is a sense-making tool rather than a ready-made strategy. The tool can also be used on an evolving basis to help practitioners make sense of new information or indicators that arise throughout the transition process.

This tool has been written for practitioners who are guiding or providing technical support to third-party organizations operating residential care institutions, to undergo transition. Practitioners may be technical staff, child protection staff or social workers of local or international NGOs, or consultants. They may be providing transition support as an individual practitioner or as part of a multidisciplinary team. Practitioners may be providing technical support to transitioning institutions under a number of arrangements including:

• as part of a program or service offered by their agency;
• as part of a partnership formed with the institution or with their donor entity for the specific purpose of providing technical support;
• as part of a contract or consultancy; or
• as part of a national deinstitutionalization plan which utilizes the technical expertise of a civil society partner to support transitioning institutions.

The tool is primarily designed for use in transitions involving institutions that are:

• Privately run;
• Largely overseas funded; and
• Located in countries with emerging or weak regulatory frameworks.

The tool can be used regardless of whether the transition or closure is voluntary or mandated by government.

It is important to recognize some of the limitations of the tool and situations that it was not designed for or where its use is not recommended. These include: ƒ

• Closure of government-run institutions. Practitioners supporting the transition of government-run institutions may find some of this tool relevant and useful, particularly regarding stakeholder engagement in the implementation phase. However, it is important to note that the tool was not primarily designed with the transition or closure of government-run institutions in mind. The process of transitioning or closing government-run institutions can be quite different. It can be less complex in terms of the buy-in process and stakeholder management, because it takes place in response to a government directive. Practitioners are also less likely to be involved in the whole process of closure or transition.
• ƒSelf-assessments for organizations directly operating residential care services. The tool was not designed to be used as a self-assessment tool to support organizations that directly operate residential care services to independently transition. While it may provide some relevant learning and suggestions, it is not a transition training manual designed to walk an organization through each step of a transition process.
• Usage in interview settings with directors or principal donors of residential care services. The tool is designed to help practitioners make sense of the information they have collected, formally and informally. It is not a set of questions to directly ask the key stakeholders, or a survey or form to complete with, or in the presence of, stakeholders. Instead, practitioners can provide key stakeholders or partners with an overview of the tool on page 161 in the Annex, if they wish to provide a concise summary of the tools that they will use to develop the transition strategy.
• Usage by inexperienced or untrained practitioners. The tool assumes and requires a fair degree of technical knowledge of transition and therefore should be used by practitioners with sufficient training and experience. This reflects the complex nature of transition work that should not be underestimated or minimized.ƒ
• Usage as a reintegration manual. While reintegration is undoubtedly one of the most important outcomes of a transition process, the tool refers to the broader process of transition entailing multiple stages (refer to Diagram 1: Stages of Transition, page 7). It is not meant to provide guidance on how to outwork a reintegration process. Resources that are designed for this purpose can be found in ‘Useful Resources and Tools’ in the Annex, page 144.

Practitioners will need to have a fair degree of existing knowledge about the director and principal donor to be able to use this tool. Therefore, the assessment component of the tool should ideally be used during Stage 2 of the overall transition process (refer to Diagram 1: Stages of Transition, Background), after awareness-raising and organizational assessments have already been conducted. It is at this point that practitioners are likely to have gathered sufficient and relevant information to be able to complete the assessment, both from direct observations of, and interactions with, stakeholders as well as third-party sources of information. However, it is recommended that practitioners read through the tool prior to commencing Stage 1 of a transition as the content is likely to inform the approach to awareness-raising, organizational assessments, and information gathering.

If gaps in knowledge are identified during the process of working through the indicators, it is advisable to seek further information or clarity as far as is possible. This will ensure that practitioners gain the maximum benefit from the tool. Where certain information is not yet known, the questions can be used to guide practitioners to gather further information prior to finalizing the assessment.

The tool is organized into four sections. 

Section One: Indicators and Implications

This is the core of the tool. It contains a set of checklists containing a wide range of indicators and implications pertaining to the director and the principal donor as the two key stakeholders, as well as their partnership. This section is organized around seven key themes, each broken down into the following three sections: ƒ

• About this Theme

Each theme starts with a brief overview of the theory it draws upon. The theories have been summarized for practitioners who find the theoretical context useful. Others may find it more useful to skip straight to the more concrete indicators.

• ƒIndicators

For each theme, practitioners can select the indicators relevant to, and representative of, the director and the principal donor, and the partnership between them.

Practitioners are then guided to identify the color category that best fits their situation for that particular theme. Both the indicators and the following implications are categorized using a traffic light risk rating system:

• Implications

Following on from the indicators are a set of implications that correspond to each color category. The implications include the following sections:

• explanation;
• suggested actions;
• funding implications; and
• where relevant, notes and warnings designed to alert practitioners to risks and assumptions that could prove problematic.

The implications are based on trends observed across numerous transitions and are designed to help practitioners identify more subtle underlying issues. More concrete institution assessment frameworks may not capture these underlying issues, but they are critical to consider as they can significantly impact on transition and, by extension, children.

The list of implications should not be taken as definitive or exhaustive, and this tool does not remove the need for practitioners to conduct in-depth assessments of the institution and children in care as a part of the transition process. An example of an institution assessment form can be found here.

Section Two: Collating and Analyzing Findings

This section guides practitioners to collate their findings from all seven themes.

This gives an overall risk rating and a sense of the following important dynamics:

• the presence of positive indicators that enhance transition;
• the level of complexity ranging from low to high;
• the related risks including risk of interference or sabotage;
• the type and level of technical support required;
• the implications for human and financial resources;
• the stage of transition that should be commenced within the overarching transition timeline; and
• whether a realistic end goal is transition to alternative services or safe closure.

Section Three: A Note on Sabotage

This section unpacks the issue of sabotage, which is referred to throughout the tool. It provides more context and outlines the scope of behaviors that may constitute sabotage, ranging from mild to severe.

Section Four: Concluding Remarks

This section contains a short conclusion and is followed by the annex section where the case studies and a list of other useful resources can be found.