CHILDREN UNDER STATE CARE IN CHILE

1. CHILDREN UNDER STATE CARE IN CHILE SivOltEdal, University of Nordland Carolina Muñoz, P. Universidad Catolica de chile

2. AGENDA • Social Services for children in Chile • Contextual understanding of family vs. child focus in Chile • Discussion

3. National Service for Children

4. Causes for intake

5. UNICEF 2010: children under residential institutional care • 62% has relatives • 70% of mothers only did elementary school. 20% high school 10% without education • 66% fathers elementary education, 22% high school, 10% without education. • 69% poor children, only 30% is registered access to public health services • Professionals see families as more complex than in the past, now they are involved in drugs (addictions, traffic); Domestic violence, women are affected by depression • Professionals see themselves without the skills and knowledge to achieve reunification

6. UNICEF 2010:children under residential institutional care • High professional turnover • Lack of interaction between daily care workers and professionals • Daily care workers feel responsible for children’s life (eating, studying, friends) • Lack of specialization, daily care workers without training, concentrated in domestic tasks and controlling children’s behaviour • Interventions are not oriented towards reunification • Family does not participate actively, and there are not incentives to do so. • Absence of networking with the community • There is deficit on helping children towards autonomy in a progressive process

7. TheContext

8. CONTEXT • 1928-1990 • The system serving children in Chile up to 1990 was a tutelary one, as organised originally by Act 4.447, Ley de Menoresin 1928, which aimed to deal with infractions of the law, abandonment, need for protection and, generally, ‘irregular social situations’ affecting children (Tello 2003). • This system was reinforced by Act 16.618 of 1967, which focused on irregular family relationships and children’s behavior. During this period, children and families facing social problems were understood in terms of this notion of social irregularityor disfunctionality. There was a strong role for the state, and an interest in protecting social order so that the social structure remains stable. • 1990 -today • Today, the system of social care for children is based on the discourse of children’s rights, embraced in Chile from 1990 onwards by the new democratically elected government after the military dictatorship. • The same coalition of political parties governed the country for almost 20 years until the opposition won in 2009, and dominated policy definitions and public rhetoric. Yet its influence on services provided to children and families appears negligible when measured by direct observation (Farías, 2004).

9. CONSEQUENCES

10. Consequences FORMER VISION • The labeling of some children and their families as deviant assigned to the state the duty of supervising the discharge of parental responsibilities and other tasks associated with the satisfaction of basic needs of children. • This vigilant role over children’s lives derived from social control practices exerted upon children and their families, justified by the families’ alleged failure to properly raise their children. • From this followed the policy of separating children from their families, and segregating them for long periods in out-of-home care institutions, which were to act as substitute parents. • The medical model underlying the understanding of these social processes, typical of early twentieth century social intervention, led to a classification of parental roles as dysfunctional when they affected the system, legitimating state intervention and affecting families’ self-perception. Some of these visions endure is social services, particularly in some residential services, were children face long permanencies.

11. Exploring contextual understanding of child protection • Rights vs. vulnerability perspective • Strengths vs. Needs • Power and Powerless Contextual understanding of family or child focus in Chile (child vs. children in families)

12. Rights vs. Vulnerability

13. Strengths vs. Needs

14. Power and Powerlessness

15. Contextual understanding of children services in Chile (child vs. childrenin families) • Fragmentation between children and families • Concentration of power and decision making (lack of participation in different layers and positions) • Critically review opinions about families (lower class families) • Emphasize work with families to achieve reunification when it is the best for the child