United States Government Action Plan on Children in Adversity

See the 44-page pdf here. This was published in December 2012 as is called the “Framework for International Assistance: 2012–2017”

JCICS promoted it right before Russia banned US adoptions. See here.

I first want to note which organizations listed in order on the document are involved in this scheme that seems to have replaced the FFOA movement: US Department of State; US Department of Defense (no foreign country should worry about that, right?); US Drug Administration; Department of Labor;Department of Health and Human Services; National Institutes of Health; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC);US AID (kicked out of Russia in October 2012-US AID in Russia is mentioned on page 15 except they leave out that they have been kicked out ); Peace Corps ; President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR);US Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children & Families (ACF).

The goal of this 5-year plan is as follows: “The goal of the U.S. Government Action Plan on Children1 in Adversity2 is to achieve a world in which all children grow up within protective family care3 and free from deprivation, exploitation, and danger.
The plan is grounded in evidence that shows a promising future belongs to those nations that invest wisely in their children, while failure to do so undermines social and economic progress.4 Child development is a cornerstone for all development, and it is central to U.S. development and diplomatic efforts. The plan seeks to integrate internationally recognized, evidence-based good practices
into all of its international assistance initiatives for the best interests of the child.5
Efforts to assist vulnerable girls and boys in low- and middle-income countries have often focused on single vulnerability cohorts and categories – for example, children affected by HIV/AIDS, in emergencies, or in the worst forms of child labor, including those who have been trafficked. Although current efforts have produced substantial benefits, this diff used approach can result in a fragmented response.
Coordinated, multifaceted action can help ensure that children in adversity benefit fully from policies and services.
Public Law 109-95:The Assistance for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act of 2005 (PL 109-95) calls for a comprehensive, coordinated, and eff ective response on the part of the U.S. Government to the world’s most vulnerable children. PL 109-95 also requires an interagency strategy. In accordance with the legislative mandate, an interagency coordination strategy
was developed in 2006. However, interagency partners agree that the strategy required revision given the number of U.S. Government offices, departments, and agencies involved in international assistance to vulnerable children that were not included in the 2006 strategy, which focused on programming for children aff ected by HIV/AIDS. The 2006 strategy lacked clarity with regard to
overarching guiding principles, goals, objectives, and outcome indicators.
In 2011, U.S. Government interagency partners actively began a process to establish whole-of government guidance and a strategy for children in adversity. The process was informed by a U.S. Government Evidence Summit on Protecting Children Outside of Family Care, an interagency initiative under Public Law 109-95. A key result of the summit was the commitment of senior U.S. Government interagency leaders to establish guiding principles and a U.S. Government strategy for assistance to these children – the very fi rst of its kind. This commitment was published in The Lancet on December 12, 2011.6 Under the leadership of the U.S. Government Special Advisor for PL 109-95, an interagency team worked collaboratively over 10 months to develop this fi rst-ever U.S. Government
Action Plan on Children in Adversity.
The Special Advisor will work with interagency partners over the next 5 years to ensure that all U.S. Government activities under the plan are implemented by appropriate U.S. Government departments and agencies, integrated into relevant U.S. Government foreign policy initiatives, and enhanced through engagement with governmental and nongovernmental partners.”

Principles and Supporting Objectives

“Principal Objectives
Objective 1 Build strong beginnings: The U.S. Government will help ensure that children under 5 not only survive, but also thrive by supporting comprehensive programs that promote sound development of children through the integration of health, nutrition, and family support. [Please note that adoption service providers have branched out into nutrition-based NGOs and large agencies like Bethany advertise themselves as Family Preservation Agencies now. They are happy to take money direct from the taxpayer if they can’t get it from PAP clients.]

Objective 2 Put family care first: U.S. Government assistance will support and enable families to care for their children; prevent unnecessary family-child separation; and promote appropriate, protective, and permanent family care.7 [Riiiight, that is why JCICS the adoption agency lobbyist is involved.]

Objective 3 Protect children: The U.S. Government will facilitate the efforts of national governments and partners to prevent, respond to, and protect children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect.” [Imperialistic much?]

Supporting Objectives
Objective 4 Strengthen child welfare and protection systems:
The U.S. Government will support partners to build and strengthen holistic and integrated models to promote the best interests of the child. [Why don’t you start with strengthening the pathetic US foster care system?]

Objective 5 Promote evidence-based policies and programs: The U.S. Government will devote resources to building and maintaining a strong evidence base on which future activities to reach and assist the most vulnerable children can be eff ectively
planned and implemented. This evidence base will assist in the cost-eff ective utilization of program funds as well as the monitoring and evaluation of program eff ectiveness and long-term impact on children. [This sounds suspiciously like the failed  FFOA legislation in which US adoption agencies were going to take censuses and evaluate of orphanages.]

Objective 6 Integrate this plan within U.S. Government departments and agencies: The U.S. Government will institutionalize and integrate the components of this plan in its diplomatic, development, and humanitarian efforts overseas.

“Targeted Starting Point”

“While the Action Plan on Children in Adversity applies to U.S. Government assistance globally, it also identifi es a more targeted

starting point for these eff orts: to achieve three core outcomes in at least six priority countries over a span of 5 years. In these countries,

through U.S. Government collaboration with other government, international, private, faith-based, and academic partners, the plan calls for significant reductions in the number of:

1. Children not meeting age-appropriate growth and developmental milestones

2. Children living outside of family care by placing them in appropriate and protective family care

3. Children who experience sexual violence or exploitation

Advances toward these core outcomes will necessarily require prioritization of countries in which collective assistance across

vulnerability categories can be harnessed at scale. The criteria for selection of priority countries will include the:

– Magnitude and severity of the problems to be addressed

– Partner country interest in participation, including commitments regarding monitoring and evaluation, as well as transparent reporting

– Potential to leverage bilateral, multilateral, and foundation investments

– Potential to leverage other U.S. development investments

– Regional diversity to maximize learning opportunities

– Level of economic development, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries

Designation will be based on consultations with Congress, U.S. departments and agencies, partner donor governments, and

other stakeholders.”[Gee I wonder who those stakeholders would be?]

Outcomes (Now this REALLY sounds like FFOA)

“Below are the specifi c outcomes that the U.S. Government aims to achieve within targeted subpopulations.

Outcome 1.1:

The percentage of children achieving age-appropriate growth and developmental milestones is increased.

Outcome 1.2:

The percentage of children under 5 years of age demonstrating secure attachment with a primary caregiver is increased. [Who is going to magically assess that? And does that mean children will be separated if some entity feels that they haven’t attached enough?]

Outcome 1.3: The number of U.S. Government-funded programs that integrate health, nutrition, developmental protections, and caregiving support is increased.” [How convenient that adoption providers have branched out into nutrition “services”!]

Outcome 2.1: The percentage of children living within appropriate, permanent, and protective family care is increased. [Who determines appropriate and how will the whole family be helped?]

Outcome 2.2: The percentage of children living in institutions is reduced. [This is good but it leaves out where they intend children to go.]

Outcome 2.3: The percentage of families providing adequate nutrition, education opportunities, care, and protection for their children is increased.

Outcome 3.1: The percentage of children who experience violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect is reduced.

Outcome 3.2: The percentage of children who receive appropriate care and protection after experiencing violence, exploitation, abuse, or neglect is increased.

Outcome 3.3: The percentage of target population that views violence, exploitation, abuse, or neglect of children as less acceptable after participating in or being exposed to U.S. Government programming is increased. [How is this going to be graded? Will this be culturally appropriate?]

Outcome 3.4: The percentage of countries that ratify and implement relevant conventions or formally adopt internationally recognized principles, standards, and procedural safeguards to protect children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect is increased. [Will the US be included in that?]

Outcome 4.1: The percentage of children who have legal documentation and birth registration is increased. [What is planned with the documentation…more international adoption?]

Outcome 4.2: The number of laws, policies, and practices in partner states that promote and strengthen child welfare and protection at household, community, and national levels is increased.

Outcome 4.3: National and local human resource capacity for child welfare and protection is increased.

Outcome 4.4: The number of national and community systems eff ectively monitoring child welfare and protection concerns, programs, and outcomes is increased.

Outcome 5.1: The number of prevalence studies that measure and track trends in children’s exposure to violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect is increased.

Outcome 5.2: The number of published (easily searchable) outcome/impact evaluations on interventions to assist children outside of family care or minimize exposure to violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect that can be generalized to larger target groups is increased.

Outcome 5.3: The number of national governments and universities leading rigorous data collection, research, and monitoring and evaluation studies related to child welfare and protection is increased.

Outcome 5.4: The number of U.S. Government-supported interventions for children in adversity designed using data from rigorous research methodologies is increased. [This again sounds like FFOA]

Outcome 6.1: The number of development and diplomatic eff orts created and coordinated through the U.S. Government Action Plan on Children in Adversity is increased.

Outcome 6.2: U.S. Government departments and agencies promote accountability for implementation of the Action Plan and develop mechanisms to eff ectively track progress over time.

Page 27 starts to explain their measurements of progress and “broader surveillance” of foreign programs.

Pages 29-37 describe which US organizations will be involved in the objectives and outcomes.

REFORM Puzzle Pieces

 Sounds like a recipe for child separation and new corruptions. If a biological family isn’t meeting a US milestone, will they be removed and adopted out? How would that help the rest of the family? The JCICS example given in their post is about separating a child from a poor family member and internationally adopting the child to the US. The family member got money for a business postplacement. It is pathetic that JCICS calls  this “Putting Family First.” Why didn’t the NGO keep the niece in the family while assisting the woman to gain a business. Why does plucking a child out FIRST have to happen?If that is an example of this new program, then this is going to be disastrous for poor families.