September 2024
Transition to Family Care
A Simulation Experience
Introduction
Simulation Lab Background
Scripture and science suggest that children need families. However, millions of children around the world are separated from parental care, often living in residential care centers such as orphanages, children’s homes, and boarding schools. Without these service providers, there would be a vacuum of services, leaving these children even more vulnerable. Thus, residential care providers are critical partners on the journey to moving children to family care.
Around the world, we are seeing a global movement of programs transitioning their services from residential to family care. Thousands of children have been moved from residential to family care, and now thousands more individuals have been impacted as programs engage with entire families rather than individual children.
But although this all sounds like a good idea, engaging with new models of care brings many questions:
• Will children be cared for well?
• Are families capable of caring for their children?
• What will happen to our staff? To our property?
• How will we find families for children?
• What care model will we adopt?
• How will donors and partners respond?
• Will we succeed? Will we fail?
• Where can we find help?
It can be a very uncertain time for a program.
Simulation Lab Purpose
To remove some of the mystery, the Christian Alliance for Orphans (CAFO), in partnership with Hope and Homes for Children and the Faith to Action Initiative, developed an experiential workshop centered to address this topic. It involves a fictional case study of an orphanage preparing to move the children in their care to family care. This workshop was created to provide a safe and encouraging space for those involved in residential care to think through the process of a transition toward providing family-based care. Workshop participants were guided through activities and discussions to plan and implement a transition for the fictional organization, Precious Children of Hope Children’s Home (PCH). The material was written by Dr. Nicole Wilke and adapted from workshop exercises previously created by Dr. Delia Pop.
Frequently, organizations become quickly overwhelmed when considering the transition to family care.
They begin to think immediately about what transition would mean for individual children, families, and staff members. They start to chart a course to transition, identifying obstacles and possible solutions. They feel shame, regret, defensiveness, or other feelings that lead them to not fully engage with learning. With these emotions, the brain can move into a stress response, limiting the ability to think clearly and critically. These thoughts and experiences decrease a person’s ability to fully understand the purpose and process of transition, making it less likely they will be able to move toward family care.
Engaging with a fictional case study allows participants to explore the core building blocks of the transition process while eliminating the need to immediately consider the complexities that can come with imagining a reshaping of their program. They are able to learn, wrestle with, adapt new information, and reflect on what is possible and helpful for children in their care. With the guidance of experienced Table Coaches, as well as group discussions, they are given the opportunity to create a plan for next steps in their program.
Participants in this event will walk away with:
• An understanding of how residential programs can be part of caring for children in families
• A picture of the main components of the process of transition
• Connections to others in transition or considering transition
• Their one next step in the process of transition
• Access to tools to assist in the transition to family care
Simulation Lab Format
The majority of the Simulation Lab will be based on discussion. There will be some brief remarks at the beginning of the event. Once those are complete, the facilitator or emcee will offer some framing remarks (outlined below) to set the stage for the event. These are intended to help participants to know what to expect. Then, participants will be split into six equal or nearly-equal groups, each at a different table. Each table will have a specific theme:
Resource Use
This resource is free for use by organizations or individuals seeking to prioritize expanding family care options for children. Users can translate or contextualize for cultural appropriateness while leaving basic components intact. The workshop creators do require that all participants complete a feedback survey during their event, as this allows for continued refinement of this tool.
Event Foundations
This event is built on certain foundational assumptions. These are important for you to understand as a facilitator. They may or may not be something you choose to incorporate into the event you host.
Foundational Belief #1: Children Need Families
Children need families. Family is uniquely suited to providing the love, nurture, security, and advocacy children need to thrive.
The book of Genesis outlines how God created humanity and placed humans in a family. Numerous times in Scripture, orphans and widows are mentioned together, indicating God calling his people to keep families together
• “...learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.” -Isaiah 1:17
• “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” -James 1:27
• “Do not take advantage of the widow or the fatherless.” -Exodus 22:22
From the beginning, the family was God’s design:
• “A father to the fatherless, a defender of widows, is God in his holy dwelling. God sets the lonely in families…” -Psalm 68:5-6
Research confirms that family is the ideal setting for raising a child. Children raised in families tend to have better outcomes than children raised in residential care settings such as orphanages or children’s homes. We can even see the importance of family in a phenomenon referred to as “developmental catch-up.” When children are moved from group care to family care, we often see improvement in growth and development. In this sense, family can be viewed as a treatment for much of the development lost in group care.
Foundational Belief #2: When We Know Better, We Do Better
No change is easy, but progress always requires a willingness to change. Leaders and staff in programs transitioning from residential to family models of care tend to experience many emotions during the process. You may feel excited at the possibility of moving towards family solutions. You may feel regret that you didn’t learn about family care sooner. You might feel skeptical that family care would work in your program or context. You might feel impatient to move toward family solutions. You might feel something else entirely.
All of these emotions are normal and acceptable. Notice them– what are they telling you? What are your hesitations? What are your fears? What would be the impact if you could transition your program? Write it down– you can come back and process this later. Notice your emotions, but choose not to get stuck in them.
We are all learning together. As we gain new information, we have the privilege of modifying our ministry to support better outcomes for children and families. As a global community, we are recognizing our over-reliance on the residential care model. We are seeing that outcomes– not only for children but for adults who experienced residential care– are often not what we had hoped. We are recognizing there is a more effective and efficient way to care for children by supporting family care. We are in this together, and as we know better, we have the opportunity to do better.
Foundational Belief #3: Family is Possible
The good news is that family is possible. Around the world, practitioners caring for vulnerable children are recognizing an over-reliance on the residential care model and are transitioning their services to support children in families. You can be part of this movement. Data from a recent study of programs that have transitioned can be seen here:
Innovations in care for children separated from parents
Transitioning from residential to family models of service
The Problem
Research suggests that children develop best in families, but millions currently reside in residential care centers Many residential care centers wish to transition to family-based models of care, but lack practical guidance and support.
The Solution
Understanding the process and outcomes for NGOs that have already made the transition from residential to family care offers valuable insight about what is most effective, and can guide programs that desire to change their model
A care model transition requires significant strategy, time, and resources How can organizations who desire to transition their model of care learn from those who have already done so?
According to survey data from...
39
NonGovernmental Organizations serving children & in countries
22 12,325 29,499 families
who had already transitioned or were in the process of transitioning their programs:
Child safety
Funding and resources
Fearing resistance from key stakeholders
‘Would the children not be neglected and abused?’
Traditional orphan care stil attracts far more interest and support '
The Concerns The Results The Deciding Factors
Child well-being
Family empowerment
Increased impact
‘Children thrived Not just one child [was] supported but the whole family ’
Examining outcomes for children
Recognizing the insufficiency of the residential model
An increased awareness of the need for children to be in families
‘Through our experience with running an orphanage and find ng out that many orphans have family and miss them, we did some small-scale re-unifications and these children thrive better within their family system ’
The Process
Internal assessment evaluation and brainstorming was key
Becoming more intentional and proactive in supporting parents of children who were placed in our residentia home to set them up for successful reintegration ’
Revising strategy
Raising awareness
Engaging families
The Barriers
Funding for additional staff
Stakeholder resistance
Training & support
National laws
Programmes perceived the change in the model was better for the families and children served
Scan to access the full-color infographic.
Change can be intimidating, but these results are so motivating!:
• Child well-being increased
• Families were empowered
• Impact increased
• Cost per child decreased
Note this powerful quote from one of the participants in the study:
All programs caring for vulnerable children can be part of seeing children cared for in safe, healthy, loving families. As a global child welfare community, we are learning how we can be part of improving outcomes for children. We are moving toward better care for children- together- and we are grateful you are along on the journey.
Sample Schedule
This event covers an important, complex topic. In order for it to be successful, you will need a full day that has been well-planned to maximize your time together. Come prepared, so that each minute can be used wisely. In order to get you started, we are sharing a draft schedule. Keep in mind that you can modify the schedule to suit your needs and context. However, it will be important to leave enough time for group discussion- that’s where the learning happens!
***The numbers on the left below represent minutes. For example, 10-20 means minutes 10 to 20 of the event.***
0-10 Welcome and framing remarks
10-20 Video: Story of Transition
20-30 Introduction to Simulation Activity
30-35 Participants read case study individually
35-40 Separate into groups to discuss questions provided
40-1:20 Group session 1
1:20-1:30 Break
1:30-2:10 Group session 2
2:10-2:20 Break
2:20-3:00 Group session 3
3:00-3:10 Break
3:10-3:50 Group session 4
3:50-5:00 Lunch
5:00-5:40 Group session 5
5:40-5:50 Break
5:50-6:30 Group session 6
6:30-6:40 Break
6:40-6:50 Complete Reflection Form
6:50-7:10 Discuss Reflection Form responses with small group (3-5 individuals)
7:10-7:40 1) Ask individuals to share the ONE thing they learned from this exercise and will plan to implement.
7:40- 7:45 2) Participants take survey- they will receive resource toolkit link when the survey is complete.
7:45-8:00 3) Final remarks and Prayer
Case Study
As we noted before, this event is intended to explore the process of transitioning from residential to family care using a fictional case study. The following case study is fictional but draws from multiple real-life situations in which children were cared for in residential settings. It is for the purpose of planning, imagining, discussing, and troubleshooting the process of transition from residential to family care.
HISTORY
Precious Children’s Home (PCH) has been serving in an Eastern African country for 26 years. A missionary couple began caring for children whose parents had died during a cholera outbreak. It eventually became known as the place to bring children without parental care. This evolved into a home, and eventually a nonprofit organization.
HOME
The children’s home compound contains a small school, a church, a main building, two girls homes, and two boys homes. There is a 2-acre garden used to feed the children, along with chickens for eggs and meat. In 2014, a church partner built a small cabin to house visitors on the property.
CHILDREN
PCH currently has 74 children in their care, ages 2-19. Most of the children were born locally. Some were placed in their care by the local government, and others were voluntarily placed by family or caregivers. Twenty-three of the children are being treated for HIV, and several have special needs related to mobility and learning ability. However, the majority of children are in good health.
The children are loved and well cared for at PCH. It is safe, they are well-fed, and they have plenty of opportunities for learning and play. Nonetheless, when asked, the children say they long for a family to call their own. Once they reach adulthood and leave PCH, most of the youth have struggled to transition successfully into community life, and often return to PCH to seek assistance.
FAMILIES
Approximately one-third of the children living in the home have a surviving parent and around 80% of them have relatives living nearby. The primary reasons for placement include lack of funds for education, nutrition, or medical care, lack of childcare in single-parent families, poor health of parents, or placement by the government due to abuse or neglect. Most children stay with parents or relatives for holidays and school breaks.
STAFF
PCH boasts a skilled and committed local staff of 25. A missionary couple from the U.S. serve as Co-Directors, and there is a small U.S.-based staff and board. Two of the caregivers have been with the organization for more than 20 years. Each of the boys and girls homes has three female caregivers, who rotate eight-hour shifts. Each caregiver lives in the local village with her family. In addition to 12 total caregivers, PCH has a cook, an assistant cook, two maintenance staff, three teachers, two teaching assistants, two social workers, a nurse, and a staff trainer. Local staff members have varying motivations and attachments to the current model of care. Several of the staff members were once children in the home. On the one hand, they recognize that children naturally thrive in healthy families and want these kids to have families, if at all possible. On the other hand, they worry about their livelihoods and their own families if the care center were to close. For some, like the two women who have worked with PCH for more than 20 years, the center is their family, and they have anxiety about change.
FUNDING
The majority of funding comes from U.S.-based churches and some private donors. Major donors are deeply invested in PCH’s work, with personal and emotional connections to the staff and children. Most have made multiple visits to the home and advocate for their work. About 25% of their annual budget comes from three major donors. Church partners engage financially, but also by sending short-term missions teams and sharing videos from PCH with their church congregation. They want a partnership that extends beyond finances and helps their congregants to be connected to what God is doing around the world to build the Kingdom. Most church partners have little to no expertise in caring for orphans and vulnerable children and are simply trusting PCH to guide their engagement. Approximately 60% of short-term mission-sending churches make at least a one-time donation and oftentimes team members become monthly donors. Each of the various buildings on the property has engraved bricks with the names of church and individual sponsors.
PCH has a volunteer fundraiser in the U.S., but no hired staff specifically focused on development. Fundraising efforts include regular communication (monthly email newsletters
and weekly social media posts), an annual gala in Dallas (which historically brings in around 15-20% of the annual budget), short-term mission trips, and personal relationships with staff. Communications with church partners also include membership on the monthly newsletter list and quarterly 2-3 minute videos that they can play during a church service, small group meeting, or Sunday school. Additionally, PCH works to get advocates to share about their ministry at as many partner churches as possible on Orphan Sunday every November.
COMMUNITY
PCH sits on the edge of the local town with a population of 18,000 people. Although the land is fertile, unemployment sits at around 60%. Food is easily accessible, but clean water is harder to come by. The HIV/AIDS crisis has hit this community hard, with a 22% infection rate, leaving many children without living parents. Additionally, Cholera has been an intermittent problem over the years. Soccer and other sports are a popular pastime. The rate of chemical dependency is unknown, but seems more common than not. Education is free and compulsory to grade 7, and most community members are not educated beyond that.
GOVERNMENT
Historically, the government has relied on care for children in large children’s homes. In the past three years, the government has declared a mandate for residential care centers to move toward family care, and laws have gone into effect that make foster care a legal alternative. However, although alternative family care is legal, it is not common, and there is limited government infrastructure and resources to support it. There are not enough governmentemployed child welfare workers to keep up with cases, and most social workers are not sufficiently trained in the process of moving toward family care. Government leaders have partnered with NGOs to provide case management and screening for foster families, as well as working to reintegrate children from a large institution that has historically had poor care practices.
TRANSITION
With increasing pressure from the government, the U.S. Director of PCH began exploring the concept of transition. He first spent time talking with another organization that made a similar transition. Hopeful, he is now leading PCH to explore the process of placing children in families. Most board members are open to learning more information. They have reviewed resources on transitioning and see it as a possibility for PCH. They believe it may naturally solve some of the recurrent issues when their youth transition to adulthood, but have raised questions about the impact on funding and engaging short-term teams. The U.S. Director has not yet discussed transitioning with others outside of PCH’s Board, sensing a need to be very sensitive and intentional in moving forward.
MOVING TOWARDS FAMILY SOLUTIONS ENGAGEMENT
Key PointsElevator Pitch (i.e., How you may convince a stakeholder of the need for a new model.)
Key Questions About Transition to Family Care Part of Transition that Appeal to Stakeholder
Potential Concerns or Barriers
Key Stakeholders
Children
Children and families are the most important partners, as they are the people most impacted by the process, and are often best suited to identifying their own strengths, needs, and desires. Most children are interested but apprehensive. This would be new a nd different. For those from an unhealthy family situation, they would be meeting and living with a brand new family. They wonder how they would see the children from PCH and if they can stay with their siblings.
There is a lot of unknown, but ultimately, they want the belonging and security of parents uniquely committed to them.
Families
Most of the families would love to have their children in their care, if only they had the material and social supports to care well for them. However, some worry about whether they can succeed in giving their children a good life. They may also feel intim idated about undergoing an assessment to see if their children can return home. The process feels invasive, and they are afraid of failure.
Staff
Most of the local staff members have mixed feelings. On the one hand, they recognize that children naturally thrive in healthy families and want these kids to have families if at all possible. On the other hand, they worry about their livelihoods and their own families if the care center were to close. For somelike the two women who have worked with PCHCH for more than 20 yearsthis is all they know.
Board Members
Most board members are open to learning more information. They have reviewed some resources and see it as a distinct possibility for PCH. They recognize that it may naturally solve some of the recurrent issues around helping youth transition to adulthood. The big question for them is how will this affect funding. Shortterm teams are a major source of financial partnershipwhat do they do with a team if there is no home to visit?
Donors
Donors seem to represent both extremes. It was a group of donors that approached the directors with the idea to transition, as well as some supporting resources for the transition. They are ecstatic at the possibility of children being moved to families. H owever, some of the other donors want to know what will become of the buildings they have sponsored and how the children’s safety will be guaranteed. They question the stewardship of a change like this.
MOVING TOWARDS FAMILY SOLUTIONS
CASE MANAGEMENT
What postplacement support and monitoring will the child and family need?
What type of preparation will the child need before placement? What type of preparation will the family need before placement?
What type of placement should be explored first?
CHILD NAME
Vincent (age 4) is a quiet boy. He was placed at PCH at age 3 when his mother was hospitalized and soon died of AIDS . He is meeting developmental milestones and attends the PCH kindergarten, though if he could, he would spend all his time playing outdoors. Vincent doesn’t have any known relatives. His father’s location is unknown.
Andrew (age 7) attends the PCH school and is in the 1st grade.
Andrew likes school, where his performance is average. Andrew has friends at school and enjoys playing football. Andrew knows his mother and grandmother and frequently asks about them. He is anxious and som etimes has accidents during the night. His mom is a single mother living with her mother and her older sister in a small village just outside the city where the PCH is located. His mother, aunt, and grandmother visit occasionally. His mother has been unemp loyed for several years. She worked in a clothes factory until she was laid off when the business slowed down. The family survives through subsistence farming, unemployment allowances, and seasonal work. The mother’s older sister is employed. She also left her children in the institution when her husband left her. Andrew was 4 at the time.
Emma (age 17) was placed at PCH when she was six. Her mother brought her in, saying she could not afford to give Emma a future. Emma is attending the PCH school and wants to become a social worker. Emma is doing well academically and wants to apply to university after g raduation. The staff in the institution likes her because she is responsible and hardworking. Emma’s family lives in a remote village in the same county where the institution is located. Emma spent time with her family over the summer school holidays when she was younger, but since attending high school, she decided to remain in the institution over the summer to study.
Ruth (age 3) is a lively girl. She is meeting developmental milestones and is very sociable. She is attached to her older sister, Marcie, and likes to spend time with her. She rarely has accidents during the night and knows how to use the toilet. She doesn’t attend ki ndergarten but is educated by caregivers in the institution. Ruth likes cartoons and playing with dolls. Marcie (age 5) , who was also placed at PCH. Both girls were placed at PCH a year ago. Marcie is walking, and while she doesn’t talk, she can understand verbal commands. She uses sounds and gestures to show when she is hungry, upset, and wants to play with toys. Marcie is friendly and liked by the staff. She does not attend kindergarten. Her mother separated from her father soon after Ruth was born. The fa ther was drinking heavily and very violent. The parents lived in town in an apartment owned by the father, but since separating, the mother had no accommodations or childcare access. She brought the children to PCH and told staff she would return when her situation improved. She visited them twice in the following three months, but once she was under the influence of alcohol. The staff asked if she was drinking, but she refused to explain and became aggressive. After that incident, her visits stopped, and h er current whereabouts are unknown.
M O V I N G T O W A R D S F A M I L Y S O L U T I O N S F A M I L Y A S S E S S M E N T & S U P P O R T
W h a t t y p e s o f s u p p o r t w i l l P C H ( o r p a r t n e r s ) n e e d t o o f f e r f a m i l i e s ?
H o w c a n P C H a s s e s s , p r e p a r e , a n d s u p p o r t k i n s h i p , f o s t e r, a n d a d o p t i v e f a m i l i e s f o r p l a c e m e n t ?
H o w c a n P C H r e c r u i t f a m i l i e s f o r a l t e r n a t i v e f a m i l y p l a c e m e n t s ?
W h a t e x p e c t a t i o n s o f f a m i l i e s s h o u l d P C H h o l d o n t o , a n d w h a t e x p e c t a t i o n s m i g h t t h e y n e e d t o r e l e a s e ?
H o w c a n P C H a s s e s s f a m i l y m e m b e r s / fi c t i v e k i n ?
H o w c a n P C H fi n d f a m i l y m e m b e r s a n d fi c t i v e k i n ?
MOVING TOWARDS FAMILY SOLUTIONS
ASSET TRANSITION
Necessary preparation/ retraining
Possible role(s) in the new model
Strengths and skills
STAFF MEMBER OR OTHER ASSET
Anita (age 62) is a caregiver. She has been with the home since it first started and sees her role there as a calling more than a source of employment. Anita works in one of the boys’ homes and is known for being very strict but very loving. She does not give up on k ids. She mentors many of the other caregivers and has strong leadership abilities. Although Anita only has an 8thgrade education, she has a learner’s attitude and has attended countless trainings on how to care well for children. She supports transitio ning the program to family care, as she knows what research says about kids doing better in families.
Robert (age 45) is a cook. He has a heart for children and is married with four children himself. He works long days at the home and serves as his church's volunteer pastor, shepherding a congregation of about 40. He has a heart to see the local community follow God’s command to care for the fatherless by raising up and embracing orphans and vulnerable children as their own. He has strongly urged his congregants to be involved in PCH, but he would like to see children moving into loving families. He sees that the home is not the ideal solution but doesn’t know what to do instead. He is a great networker and is wellconnected and wellrespected in the community.
David (age 28) serves as maintenance staff. David moved to PCH at 11 when his parents, aunt, and uncle were killed in a house fire. The staff at PCH is the only family he and his siblings have. His sister, Josephine, is the nurse, and his sister, Kari, is a caregiver. They are all very committed to PCH. David is physically strong and works best with his hands. He has some learning disabilities, and school was hard for him. However, he has found a great fit working with PCH. He is quiet, loyal, hardworking, and happ y to do what needs to be done. PCH is truly his home, and he treats it as such. Recently, Robert has been encouraging David to take on more of a mentorship role with some adolescent boys in the home, as they lack male role models. David sees the need bu t feels illequipped. He is interested in investing more, but he doesn’t know how. He is married to Claudine, who works as a teacher in a local school not affiliated with PCH. They have a happy relationship but are biologically unable to have children. David and Claudine volunteer with the children at PCH in their free time.
Christine (age 46) is a teacher. She has been working with PCH for 13 years and feels it is her calling. She is honored to provide a Christian quality education to children w ho might not otherwise be able to attend school. She teaches preschool through grade 6 and has one teaching assistant to help her. It is a challenging job, but she is extremely organized and has developed systems to help her manage exceptionally well. I n college, Christine also pursued a fair amount of child development training. She has a heart for teaching parents and caregivers about how to optimize child development educationally and beyond. She is undecided about the transition to family care, as she fears she will no longer be able to work with her students and worries about their wellbeing.
Peter (age 35) is a teacher. He has taught at PCH for five years. He is energetic and charismatic, and his students love him. He was originally a business professional until he became a Christian. He sensed the Lord leading him to a career change and pursued educatio n. He now serves as the grade 712 teacher at PCH, making about 20% of what he used to make in business. What he lacks in income is made up for in the satisfaction he receives from pursuing his calling. Peter also works with kids from PCH and the local community to coach them through the college application process. He hopes for a day in which every local child who would like to attend college has the opportunity to do so. He sees the promise in transitioning to family care but worries children will su ffer educationally if their parents don’t adequately prioritize learning. Steven (age 52) is a social worker. He has been working with PCH for seven years. He obtained his master’s degree in clinical social work and is passionate about counseling kids and families from hard places. Although he originally signed on to do counseling, the other PCH social worker transitioned to a new role, meaning Steven was left to handle all the case management, gatekeeping, and other necessary social work systems. He does very little counseling. He wants to see families reunited and empowered to raise their children. For years, Steven has wanted to expand the reach of PCH to include the prevention of unnecessary placement of children. He is on board with the transition and is willing and able to help think through the implementation strategy. Steven could be described as focused, productive, yet very personable. The physical compound of the home is near the local community, just on the edge of town. The compound contains a small school, a church, a large main building containing a kitchen and dining area, two girls’ homes, and two boys’ homes. A twoacre garden is used to teach gardening skills and to produce food to feed the children, along with chickens for eggs and meat. In 2014, a church partner built a small cabin to house visitors on the prope rty.
MOVING TOWARDS FAMILY SOLUTIONS
MEASUREMENT
When and how would we collect this information?
What indicators could we use to measure success?
What would success look like?
CHILD NAME
Vincent (age 4) is a quiet boy. He was placed at PCH at age 3 when his mother was hospitalized and soon died of AIDS. He is meeting developmental milestones and attends the PCH kindergarten, though if he could, he would spend all his time playing outdoors. Vincent doesn’ t have any known relatives. His father’s location is unknown.
Andrew (age 7) attends the PCH school and is in the 1st grade. Andrew likes school, where his performance is average. Andrew has friends at school and enjoys playing football. Andrew knows his mother and grandmother and frequently asks about them. He is anxious and som etimes has accidents during the night. His mom is a single mother living with her mother and her older sister in a small village just outside the city where the PCH is located. His mother, aunt, and grandmother visit occasionally. His mother has been unemp loyed for several years. She worked in a clothes factory until she was laid off when the business slowed down. The family survives through subsistence farming, unemployment allowances, and seasonal work. The mother’s older sister is employed. She also left her children in the institution when her husband left her. Andrew was 4 at the time.
Emma (age 17) was placed at PCH when she was six. Her mother brought her in, saying she could not afford to give Emma a future.
Emma is attending the PCH school and wants to become a social worker. Emma is doing well academically and wants to apply to university after g raduation. The staff in the institution likes her because she is responsible and hardworking. Emma’s family lives in a remote village in the same county where the institution is located. Emma spent time with her family over the summer school holidays when she was younger, but since attending high school, she decided to remain in the institution over the summer to study.
Ruth (age 3) is a lively girl. She is meeting developmental milestones and is very sociable. She is attached to her older sister, Marc ie, and likes to spend time with her. She rarely has accidents during the night and knows how to use the toilet. She doesn’t attend kindergarten but is educated by caregivers in the institution. Ruth likes cartoons and playing with dolls. Marcie (age 5) , w ho was also placed at PCH. Both girls were placed at PCH a year ago. Marcie is walking, and while she doesn’t talk, she can understand verbal commands. She uses sounds and gestures to show when she is hungry, upset, and wants to play with toys. Marcie is f riendly and liked by the staff. She does not attend kindergarten.Her mother separated from her father soon after Ruth was born. The father was drinking heavily and very violent. The parents lived in town in an apartment owned by the father, but since separ ating, the mother had no accommodations or childcare access. She brought the children to PCH and told staff she would return when her situation improved. She visited them twice in the following three months, but once she was under the influence of alcohol. The staff asked if she was drinking, but she refused to explain and became aggressive. After that incident, her visits stopped, and her current whereabouts are unknown.
MOVING TOWARDS FAMILY SOLUTIONS
FUNDRAISING
What kind of conversation should we have with them? What materials or resources might be helpful? What are we asking for? What do we need?
Key messaging that will appeal to this donor
Motivation for partnership
Funding Partner
Major Donor A is a 64yearold male accountant who likes order, tradition, family, reading, golf, good food and serving others. Ten percent of all funding comes from Major Donor A. His father was a major donor at the beginning of PCHCH, and the dining hall is named af ter him. Their family sees funding PCHCH as part of their family legacy. Major Donor A has traveled with numerous family members to visit the home annually and calls the home his “favorite place on earth.”
Major Donors B are a couple in their 30s who fund around 8 percent of the annual budget. They gained their wealth in the tech industry and appreciate innovation, culture, and adventure. They have been giving partners for the past five years since they stumbled upon the home while visiting the country to adopt their son. PCHCH is one of three organizations
Major Donor B is deeply committed to. They have been learning about the need for family care and have begun to ask questions.
Major Donor C is a female business leader in her late 40s. She funds around 7% of the budget and is also a board member of PCHCH. She is a marathon runner, author, and frequent traveler. She became connected to the organization when a friend went on a shortterm mis sion trip and encouraged her to go too. That was 10 years ago, and since then, she has been a funding partner and an advocate for PCHCH to local churches and donors. She sees her participation as the way God has called her to care for orphans and vulnera ble children.
Major Church Donor D is a nondenominational megachurch out of Texas. They fund around 6% of the PCHCH budget. They have an annual mission budget of more than $250,000, and PCHCH is one of many partners they support. They were connected when the congregant went on a shortterm mission trip to PCHCH and began to advocate through them. They have sent one shortterm missions team (including one youth pastor but no other church leadership) in the six years they have supported PCHCH. They cannot share videos or other promotio nal material about PCHCH because they have many mission partners.
Major Church Donor E is a smalltomidsized church in Minnesota. They fund around 4% of the annual budget, and PCHCH is one of four mission partners they support. They were connected to the program when a friend of the PCHCH founders became their pastor. They are deeply c ommitted to PCHCH and have been funding partners for almost 20 years. During that time, they sent dozens of shortterm mission teams, special gifts and held campaigns to collect clothing, medicine, and school supplies for the children. They show quarterl y videos. Congregants see the kids at PCHCH as “our kids,” and the sentiment is returned. Some of the Awana kids even write back and forth to kids at PCHCH as pen pals.
MOVING TOWARDS FAMILY SOLUTIONS
Individual Reflection Form
1 How was the work of our ministry confirmed during this exercise?
2. As a result of this exercise, what might our ministry do differently?
3 Next steps::
a. What do I need to pray about?
b. Who do I need to talk to about this, and when?
c. What do I need to learn about?
4. What is the next step I can take to respond to what I learned during this exercise? When will I take this step, and how?
Additional Resources
We want to ensure that each participant has access to additional resources, ensuring they can continue their journey toward family solutions. In addition to sharing the Transition Resource Guide that they will receive after they complete the feedback survey, it may be helpful to highlight any or all of the following:
• Readiness to Transition Index: This brief self-assessment offers programs a clear snapshot of their readiness to transition to family care, as well as a customized report that recommends next steps based on their answers.
• Moving Toward Family Solutions Course: This 8-week cohort course will offer participants access to expert guidance, a community of others exploring family solutions, and a combination of excellent online resources and weekly live discussion. As part of the course, participants will develop a personal transition plan.
• Host your own Simulation: Participants in your event can be trained to host their own event, further expanding learning about moving toward family solutions.
You can do this!
And we are here to support you. If you run into questions or challenges, please reach out to the CAFO Research Center at researchcenter@cafo.org. Together, we are moving toward better care for children. You are part of this.
