The different forms of structures involved in the community response for vulnerable children, and what are they best placed to do

Abstract

Initiatives from the local community have been a major part of what has been provided towards the needs of vulnerable children. A review to identify effective approaches to support community responses identified two key issues: (1) a range of community structures is involved in responding to vulnerable children – these different structures have different characteristics with implications for how to provide support, and the structures’ most appropriate roles; and (2) the context of donor funding is changing with increasing emphasis on social protection mechanisms which do not require providing support through community structures, but may introduce new opportunities for community structures. This article discusses the different community-level structures that are responding to the needs of vulnerable children, and how the different forms of community structure contribute most effectively to different approaches to meeting the needs of vulnerable children. The article identifies differences in the use of the terms “community” and in understanding various community structures. Community initiatives provide support on an informal basis in the local community. Community-based organizations (CBOs) have some formal institutionalization and provide basic services in the local or wider community. Community coordination committees have the function of mobilizing, coordinating and supporting responses within the local or wider community. Different forms of community structure have different strengths and weaknesses, with implications for their most appropriate role. These are explored using education and protection as examples. Community initiatives are good at getting material resources directly through to vulnerable children and their caregivers. Community initiatives may also use their connectivity with vulnerable children to identify those in need of protection or who have yet to access entitlements, while community coordination committees may provide services, for example, to make community members aware of new entitlements.

Keywords:

• vulnerable children
• community structures

Notes

1. A working definition of orphans and vulnerable children that was used by major agencies encompassed children who were one of the following:

•	a child who has lost one or both parents;
•	lives in a household where at least one adult died in the last 12 months;
•	lives in a household where at least one adult was seriously ill for at least three months in the last 12 months;
•	lives in a child-headed household.

2. This figure is based upon the findings of household surveys in which respondents were asked if they had received any one of a range of external resources, including education assistance, medical care, clothing, financial support and psychosocial services (UNICEF, UNAIDS, & WHO, 2008, p. 22).

3. The Interagency Task Team (IATT) on Children and HIV/AIDS working group on “Strengthening Communities” Role in the Response’ (http://www.unicef.org/aids/index_41740.html) was formed after the Global Partners’ Forum and IATT meetings of 2006. Comprised of representatives of leading multilateral and bilateral donors and international NGOs, it led on implementation of the Global Partners’ Forum Recommendation 6.1: “Develop mechanisms for flexible funding to meet community needs”.

4. The Joint Learning Initiative on Children and HIV/AIDS (JLICA) (http://www.jlica.org) engaged practitioners, policy makers and scholars in collaborative problem-solving, research and analysis to address the needs of children living in the context of HIV/AIDS. Learning Group 2 focused upon strengthening community responses.

5. A major review of funding for civil society responding to AIDS in Southern Africa defined CBOs to be “those organizations that report working within one community or area” (Birdsall & Kelly, 2007, p. 48).

6. A widely respected report defined CBOs to be “membership organizations that rely exclusively on volunteers, and normally receive little external funding” (Foster, 2005b, p. 9).

7. The Global Fund's community systems strengthening anticipates strengthening CBOs through components such as obtaining and retaining bank accounts and continuous telecommunications services; and capacity building of human resources (salaries, wages and related costs), training, internships, learning exchanges, advocacy, building and improving knowledge management systems and community-focused operational research (Global Fund, 2009, p. 1).

8. For a detailed analysis, see Foster (2002, pp. 9–15).