Going Home: Children’s reintegration in Mexico, Moldova and Nepal

Going Home: Children’s reintegration in
Mexico, Moldova and Nepal
Going home
September 2014
©JUCONI,Mexico
©P4EC
©TravisHodges/CWISH

2 Going Home: Children’s reintegration in Mexico, Moldova and Nepal
Acknowledgements
This report was written by Dr Gillian Mann, a consultant. It is based on Family for Every Child research
reports from Mexico, Moldova and Nepal.
The report from Nepal was written by Dr Helen Baños Smith, with some additional analysis carried
out by Maria Baños Smith. The research was carried out by researchers from the Nepali NGO CWISH
(Children – Women in Social Service and Human Rights) and their partners. CWISH would like to
acknowledge the following for their contributions to the research: Shanti Adhikari, Bimaala Janawali
(Chair of CWISH), Milan Dharel, Writu Bhatta (on whose tenure the research started), Bishnu Timilsina,
Mahima Pradhan, Rakshya Ojha, reintegration project staff from MANK Sindhupalchok and FOWEP
Kavre. The research was supported by EveryChild and Family for Every Child and was part funded by
a grant from Comic Relief.
The report from Moldova was written by Dr Helen Baños Smith, with some additional analysis carried
out by Maria Baños Smith. The research was carried out by the Moldovan NGO Partnerships for Every
Child. The study team is grateful for the valuable support provided by Social Assistance and Family
Protection Department specialists, and especially to: Lucreţia Bolotovici, Head of the Community
Social Assistance Service in Ungheni; Emilia Ciobanu, Deputy Head of the Department of Social
Assistance and Family Protection in Făleşti; and Elena Chitoroagă, specialist in children’s rights and
protection from the Department of Social Assistance and Family Protection in Călăraşi, all of whom
facilitated contact with many of the people and institutions involved in the study.
The report from Mexico was written by Dr Anita Schrader McMillan, social psychologist, consultant and
Associate Research Fellow at Warwick University Medical School and Dr Elsa Herrera, sociologist and
researcher for JUCONI Mexico.

Going Home: Children’s reintegration in Mexico, Moldova and Nepal 3
This report summarises research on children’s
reintegration that took place in Mexico, Moldova
and Nepal from 2011 to 2014. The purpose of
this research was to explore the experience
and process of reintegration of separated boys
and girls in a variety of contexts, speaking to
children, their families and other stakeholders
at different stages of the reintegration process.
In total, 83 children were spoken to across the
three contexts. These children included those
in institutional care (Moldova), those living in
small-scale residential care following street living
(Mexico), and child domestic workers (Nepal).
While children’s experiences varied greatly, the
research identified five common findings on
children’s reintegration.
1. Most children and families who live apart from
each other want to live together again.
2. Children need to feel safe, loved and wanted
in order for reintegration to work.
3. Whether or not a child wants or is able
to return home depends in large part on
whether the original causes of their separation
have been addressed.
4. Reintegration needs to be tailored to the
context and to the specific needs and
circumstances of the child.
5. Reintegration is a process that requires
preparation, planning, time and holistic,
coordinated support.
These findings led to five key policy
recommendations.
1. Allow sufficient time and resources for
reintegration. Sustainable reintegration
takes time and resources to be set up,
implemented and monitored. The individual
needs of the child and the context in which
he or she lives should determine how this
process unfolds. Fixed timelines imposed by
external actors or unilaterally imposed by the
child or parents/caregivers can be harmful
because they may place undue pressure on
an already challenging undertaking.
2. Develop individual plans for child and
family. Each child and family has different
sets of needs for sustainable reintegration,
and children and families benefit from having
a clear idea of the reintegration process and
the support they will receive. Children and
parents/caregivers need support to share their
anxieties and expectations about reintegration
and to develop a plan together for how they
are going to make the process work.
3. Address the root causes of separation.
The sustainability of reintegration is contingent
upon the acknowledgement and resolution
of the problems and circumstances that led
to family separation in the first place. These
are multi-factorial and must be addressed in
holistic ways.
4. Ensure children and families have
access to social protection. Social
protection is critical to sustainable
reintegration as poverty is one of the biggest
impediments to children’s reintegration. These
protective measures should be linked to other
forms of support.
5. Provide other forms of support
too. Financial and material support for
reintegration is important but on its own is not
enough. One of the most important indicators
of the possibility of successful reintegration
is the overall quality of relationships within
the family, and support is needed to nurture
these relationships. Support is also needed
to ensure integration into schools and wider
communities.
Ultimately, as with all child rights, the state is
responsible for ensuring that children can return
to their families if it is in their best interests to do
so. However, the state may delegate responsibility
to national NGOs who often have valuable
expertise in the reintegration of children. The state
must ensure proper coordination between all
service providers, and quality control.
Summary

This report summarises research on children’s
reintegration that took place in Mexico, Moldova
and Nepal from 2011 to 2014. The purpose of
this research was to explore the experience and
process of reintegration of separated boys and
girls in a variety of contexts, speaking to children,
their families and other stakeholders at different
stages.
• Phase 1 – before reintegration: examining
why children were living apart from their
families, if and why they wanted to return
home, their expectations regarding the
reintegration process and life at home, and the
preparations they and others had made for
their return and reintegration.
• Phase 2 – immediately after reintegration:
examining children’s, families’, and others’
perspectives and experiences of the successes
and challenges of the process, within one
month after children had returned home.
• Phases 3 and 4 – several months after
reintegration: examining the views of children,
families and their communities about the
experience and process of reintegration at two
points: 6-18 months after returning home, with
a focus on home, community and school life.
The research was overseen by Family for
Every Child and carried out by national non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) JUCONI
(Mexico), CWISH (Nepal) and Partnerships
for Every Child (Moldova). In-depth details of
each phase in Mexico, Moldova and Nepal are
available in individual country reports.1
The focus
of this summary report is to explore key findings
across the three different contexts in order to
identify general strategies and processes to
ensure the sustainable reintegration of children
without parental care.
1. These reports are available online: http://www.familyforeverychild.org/knowledge-centre
2. In nearly all cases, children who participated in this research were returning to their own families as opposed to entering alternative care. The
focus of this study is therefore on family reintegration as opposed to entry into alternative care.
Introduction
This study employed the following definitions.
‘Reintegration’: the process of a child without parental care making what is expected to be a
permanent transition back to his or her immediate or extended family and community (usually of
origin), or, where this is not possible, to another form of family-based care that is intended to be
permanent.2
‘Home’: the place where a reintegrated child has gone to live. Although in most cases a child will
return to his or her family house, in some cases he or she may go to live with a family member(s)
in a house and/or location where he or she has not previously lived.
‘Reunification’: the moment a child is returned to his or her family. The term is used to
deliberately mark a moment in the reintegration process from which follow-up study will
take place.
Defining ‘reintegration’, ‘home’ and ‘reunification’

The research for this study was undertaken in
three very different contexts with children in very
different circumstances.
In Mexico, the research was undertaken
by JUCONI (Junto con los Niños – Together
with the Children), a national NGO based in
Puebla with a mission to develop, implement
and share effective solutions for marginalised
children, young people and families affected
by violence. The boys who participated in this
study had been living in a temporary residential
facility run by JUCONI for children living on the
street.3
Experiences of violence, drug-taking,
family separation and involvement with the
police were common among these boys, all of
whom came from households characterised
by high levels of poverty, social exclusion
and violence. All residents of JUCONI House
engage in an in-depth, long-term therapeutic
process alongside their parents/caregivers
and other family members.4
This process of
working together to understand one’s own
and each other’s traumatic experiences and
consequent behaviour can take many years; a
shared commitment to doing so is considered
an essential precondition before reintegration is
even considered, planned for, or implemented.
The study took place over 15 months with boys
and young men between the ages of 11 and
20. Because of the duration of the reintegration
process, the same boys were not followed
through each of the four phases outlined above.
Instead, in-depth interviews were conducted with
20 different boys at separate moments in time.
In Moldova, the study was carried out by
Partnerships for Every Child, a national
NGO that has worked extensively on the de-
institutionalisation of children, a government-led
process that has been formally under way since
2007. The children who took part in this research
were those who had been living in large-scale
residential facilities that were being closed down
as part of this reform process. At the beginning
of the study, the children interviewed were
between 12 and 16 years old. All but one had
spent between four and seven years apart from
their families, for a variety of reasons, including
high levels of household poverty; parental
migration; violence and abuse at home; lack of
access to quality education and health care;
and a widely shared mentality that the state
was better positioned than families to care for
children. Separation could usually be attributed
to more than one of these causes. Partnerships
for Every Child has worked with children,
families, schools and communities to support
the reintegration process. The study took place
with 43 children over 22 months.
In Nepal, the research was carried out by
CWISH, a national NGO that works to support
the improved working and living conditions of
child domestic workers and to assist in their
family reintegration. The majority of these
children are girls who typically come from rural
areas, usually far from Kathmandu; most belong
to marginalised ethnic groups. CWISH’s work
includes education, income generation and
psychosocial support for reintegration, alongside
work with employers and parents to encourage
withdrawal from domestic work. CWISH also
works with public authorities to prosecute child
labour exploitation. The girls and boys who
participated in this study were those who had
indicated to CWISH their desire to return home.
Most were between the ages of 10 and 14, and
had been working as domestic workers for,
on average, one to three years. The majority
came from two-parent families with two or three
siblings. Their parents and caregivers mainly
3 Over two decades, fewer than ten girls have been identified by the JUCONI street outreach team; these individuals have been referred to
partner agencies. This research was thus carried out exclusively with boys.
4 JUCONI’s theoretical framework and its therapeutic model have built on several sources, including the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust,
London, and the Sanctuary Model developed by psychiatrist Sandra Bloom (JUCONI is part of the Sanctuary Network).
The contexts of the research

worked in agriculture, as physical labourers or
in other informal work, such as domestic work,
shop keeping or in catering. The research took
place with 30 children over six to nine months.
The diversity of perspectives and experiences
provided by these three case studies is both
rich and challenging to work with. As with most
programmatic and policy work in support of
children and families, context is everything.
The reasons why children become separated
from their families, the strategies they and their
families employ to manage this separation, and
the experiences each has of family reintegration,
are not the same everywhere. Findings in
settings such as Mexico, Moldova and Nepal
are in many ways unique to these contexts but
they are not exclusively so: when it comes to
the process of reintegration and those strategies
that support the sustainable return of a child
to his or her home, this research revealed a
number of shared elements that cut across
context. In this way, the research findings from
the three countries both deepen understanding
of the different realities in which reintegration
takes place and also highlight several ways to
effectively support the process in any number of
settings.

Aim of the research
The overall aim of this research was to identify
successful elements in strategies to ensure the
sustainable reintegration of children without
parental care by examining the reintegration
process from its initial preparatory stages all the
way through to some time after children have
returned home. Doing so involves identifying
learning and good practice that contribute to the
holistic support of children and families through
this entire process.
Research process, questions and
data collection methods
In each of the three case study countries, local
level research was carried out by national NGOs:
JUCONI in Mexico, Partnerships for Every
Child in Moldova and CWISH in Nepal. Each
organisation established country research teams
and was supported by a consultant to develop
the parameters of the study, to refine a set of
guide questions, to design appropriate research
methods, and to undertake data collection and
analysis. While the research populations and
the sample sizes differed in each country, the
phased approach to collecting information and
perspectives on the experience of reintegration
was consistently employed.
The guide questions developed in each context
were specific to the different stages in the
reintegration process, so that research teams
could explore with child respondents their
experiences before and since leaving home, their
expectations about the process of reintegration,
and the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ things about being
back at home, at various points in time.5
Similar
questions were investigated with a host of
additional stakeholders. Data were collected
using individual, semi-structured interviews
with separated/reintegrated children, siblings,
parents/caregivers, employers, teachers, social
workers and others. Focus group discussions
were also used to get a sense of the experience
of ‘categories’ of people involved in the
reintegration process, such as community
members, children’s classmates and the staff
of organisations working to promote and
support reintegration. Participatory tools such as
timelines and drawings were also employed with
some, but not all, children.6
When data from all
three case study countries had been collected,
an analysis workshop was held to examine and
compare findings and to articulate cross-cutting
themes.
Sample
The table below shows the number of children
and parents/caregivers interviewed in each
phase in each of the three case study countries,
with a total of 83 children going through the
reintegration process interviewed (sample sizes
are discussed further on p.10). The views of
additional respondents were also sought, as
outlined above. For the purposes of clarity, the
numbers in this latter group are included in the
line item ‘other’.
Research methodology
5 The guide questions for each phase of each country study are available in the individual interim country research reports. Please contact
Emily.Delap@familyforeverychild.org to request copies.
6 In Mexico, for example, where child respondents were older adolescents, researchers found that one-on-one interviews worked as well
or better than participatory tools, in part, perhaps, because of the extensive previous support these children had been provided with by
JUCONI in articulating their views and experiences. Further details on the research methods used in each country are included in the
individual country reports.

7InNepal,datawerecollectedinthree,ratherthanfour,phases.
8Keyworkers(theFamilyTeamandotherkeystaff)whowereinterviewedone-on-oneandintwofocusgroups,atthebeginningandendofthedatacollectionphase.
9Employers,teachers,children’sfriends,politicalrepresentatives,communitymembers,journalists,specialistsinvolvedinthereintegrationprocess(NGOworkers,socialworkers,governmentofficials).
10Siblings,membersofthegatekeepingcommission(‘anindependentbodywhichdecidesuponthebestcarechoicesforchildren)assessmentteam,communitysocialworkers,teachers,Departmentof
SocialAssistanceandFamilyProtection,classmates,parentsofclassmates.
RespondentsPre-
reintegration
1monthpost-
reunification
Several
monthspost-
reintegration
(Point1)
Several
monthspost-
reintegration
(Point2)
NotreintegratedTotal
MexicoBoys4226620
Parents/
caregivers
4226/14
Other8
10//10/20
Nepal7
Boys743216
Girls231510250
Parents/extended
family
151711//43
Other9
174545//107
MoldovaBoys25/2725/77
Girls18/2519/62
Parents/extended
family/foster
carers
29/5128/108
Other10
52/123106/281
Childrenandparents/caregiversinterviewedineachphase

11 For a copy of these standards, please contact Emily.Delap@familyforeverychild.org
Ethical issues, consent and
confidentiality
Family for Every Child’s Standards for
Consultation and Research with Children
provided the ethical framework for the research
in each of the case study countries. These
standards lay out the requisite ethical principles
that must underlie work of this kind, including
clearly articulating the purpose and intended
outputs of the research; ensuring confidentiality;
obtaining informed consent from children and
parents/caregivers/guardians (where possible);
using methods that participants are comfortable
with; and having strategies in place to support
children or adults who may become upset or
distressed as a result of the research.11
Some of the ethical issues that researchers
confronted in this study included overcoming
challenges related to providing child respondents
with safe, quiet and private spaces where they
could speak freely, without the fear of retribution
or of garnering unwanted attention towards
themselves and their circumstances; being
careful not to single children out within their
residential settings, workplaces, or communities;
protecting the safety and integrity of researchers
in threatening circumstances; and supporting
children to talk about their lives in institutional
care or about the reasons why they were
separated from their families without becoming
highly distressed.
Limitations of the overall study
A number of challenges were faced in course of
this research, including the following.
• Research staff turnover. In some settings, it
was difficult to maintain researcher continuity
across the phases of the study. This instability
may have led in some cases to inconsistencies
in data collection and data capturing. It
may also have impacted negatively on the
establishment of trust and understanding
between researchers and child respondents
and their families. To mitigate these risks,
in-depth training, information about previous
phases of the study and support were
provided to study team members, regardless
of the point at which they joined the research.
• Sampling. While every effort was made to
follow the reintegration process for each child
through all three or four phases of the study,
it was not always possible to do so, despite
sample sizes being relatively small (see table
oppposite). In Moldova, for example, some
child respondents only participated in Phases
1 and 2; others were added in Phases 3 and
4. In Nepal, one-third of the children who had
expressed a desire to be reintegrated in Phase
1 later decided not to return home, did not
stay home for long, or became untraceable.
These challenges resulted in changes in cohort
composition (in Moldova) and a reduced
sample from one phase to the next (in Nepal).
To accommodate these complications, the
research scope expanded to include an
investigation of why reintegration did not always
work for some children. Moreover, the fact
that there were no notable differences in the
responses given by ‘new’ children suggests
that the small changes in sample populations
that took place over the course of the study did
not affect the validity of its findings.
• Some stakeholders were reluctant to
participate in the study. Topics covered
in the interviews were at times sensitive and
difficult for respondents, who may have wanted
to protect themselves by avoiding talking about
distressing issues. As well, some children and
parents feared that their responses would not
be kept confidential, and that they might suffer
negative consequences from those understood
to be more powerful – employers, parents,
caregivers in institutions, teachers – as a result
of the things they might say. Every effort was
made to reassure potential respondents and
address their concerns. All were reminded
that participation in the study was entirely
voluntary and that there would be no negative
ramifications for those who declined to be
involved.

• Uneven quality of responses at times.
Interviews with specialists – such as social
workers, teachers, therapists and others
– tended to produce more in-depth and
analytical information than those with other
stakeholders, although this situation diminished
over time. In the initial phases of the research,
particularly in Moldova and Nepal, information
provided by children and parents/caregivers
was sometimes incomplete and therefore
difficult to interpret and piece together. These
problems may have been a result of individuals’
lack of experience as research respondents,
and with being asked questions by people
unknown to them. It may also have reflected
inadequate time within the interview framework
to discuss all issues in depth; the inexperience
of some researchers; difficulties in finding
the right probing questions to encourage
respondents’ to elaborate on earlier answers;
and the fact that most parents/caregivers and
children may not have been accustomed to
having their opinions sought or to talking about
the often sensitive and painful issues raised
in the interviews. While these problems were
at times challenging to address, the quality of
the data gathered in each of the three country
case studies was nonetheless rich and robust.
• Difficulties in triangulation. While the study
teams tried to acquire information from as
many different sources as possible, it was not
always possible to triangulate children’s and
others’ statements. This was particularly the
case when there was high mobility within the
household and when there were significant
differences in parents’/caregivers’ and
children’s perspectives.

The emphasis of this section is on presenting
the compiled research evidence from all three
countries to achieve the aim of identifying
successful elements in strategies to ensure the
sustainable reintegration of children without
parental care in both the short and longer
term. The following findings were consistent
across all three research settings. They also
align with those outlined in a global literature
review on children’s reintegration, carried out in
2013 by Family for Every Child on behalf of the
inter-agency reintegration group.12
The detailed
findings from each of the Mexico, Moldova
and Nepal case studies are elaborated in the
individual country reports, including more
exhaustive breakdowns of respondents’ views
on context-specific issues not discussed in
depth in this report.
Finding 1: Most children and
families who live apart from each
other want to live together again
Despite the very different circumstances of
the children who participated in this research,
and the distinctive situations in which they live,
the vast majority of separated boys and girls in
all three countries were clear in their desire to
live with their families. Children often spoke of
wanting the love, nurture and attention of their
parents, siblings and other family members.
“I feel very bad being a domestic worker as I am
deprived of family love and care.” (Girl, Nepal)
Feelings like these were particularly acute for those
who were living in especially difficult circumstances,
for example where they were experiencing violence
at the hands of their employers (Nepal) or where
they felt trapped by the lack of freedoms and the
rigid routines of institutional care (Moldova).
“I wake up at 6.30 in the morning and sleep at
11 or 12 at night. I have to clean the bathroom,
wash dishes and prepare tea at my workplace. I
go to school at 9.30am after the morning meal. I
come home from school and work at home. The
kitchen work is over at 8-9pm and I study for
some hours before I sleep.” (Girl, Nepal)
“The teachers from the boarding school were
bad; they used to hit us on the head with a ladle.
I like living at home.” (Boy, Moldova)
Even for those separated boys and girls who
were living in decent circumstances, residing
with supportive adults and children, this same
desire to return home to be with loved ones was
strongly felt.
Similar sentiments were expressed by a 13-year-
old boy living at JUCONI House in Mexico. He
felt well-cared for, but said that he wanted to
return to live with his father – who was often
aggressive, violent and whose behaviour could
be out of control – even though the thought of
doing so made him anxious.
Girl, Nepal: “Working is not difficult but I want
to live with my family again.”
Interviewer: “Everything is good? There is
nothing that you dislike, but you want to return
home?”
Girl: “Yes [nods].”
This tension between knowing that home
was not always a safe place, yet nonetheless
wanting to return there more than anything, was
commonly experienced by the children who
participated in this study. Likewise, even when
they knew that living away from home might
provide them with long-term benefits, such as
the ability to complete schooling, or to live in an
environment where all their material needs were
met, nearly all boys and girls wanted to return
Main findings to emerge across all contexts
12 The inter-agency reintegration group is a group of NGOs and UN agencies working to promote the better reintegration of a range
of separated children. Having completed this literature review, the group is currently working on the development of inter-agency
guidelines on children’s reintegration. See the review: www.familyforeverychild.org/knowledge-centre/reaching-home

home. While some parents/caregivers were
initially ambivalent about their child returning to
live with them, in large part because they felt
he or she was benefiting from some aspects of
their experience away from home, such as being
able to attend school (Nepal), learning self-
discipline and self-regulation at JUCONI House
(Mexico), or being given specialist learning
support (Moldova), the vast majority wanted the
separation to cease.
“I feel very bad to send her away.” (Mother, Nepal)
It was also striking how caregivers were happy to
have their children back home, despite the fact
that many could barely make ends meet.
Grandmother, Moldova: “I often woke up
and crying during the night... It is much better
[since my grandchildren came home]. They are
my consolation, they always help me. It is very
interesting to live with them.”
Interviewer: “Did your life not become more
difficult with them?”
Grandmother: “No, it is better, more joyful.”
Even those boys and girls who were unrelated
to those who were being reintegrated articulated
the fundamental supportive and nurturing role
that family can and should play for children. In
Moldova, for example, this was expressed by the
classmates of reintegrated children.
“These children are closer to their parents;
they used to meet less frequently when at the
boarding school. They know that they are not
alone anymore.” (Girl)
“They were not with their parents: they were
lonely.” (Girl)
The idea that children and families should live
together because both parties need the love,
comfort and sense of belonging that comes with
strong family relationships was widely shared by
respondents in all three case study countries.
While people of all ages recognised that
there are some circumstances in which family
reintegration is not possible or not in the child’s
or family’s best interests, it was nonetheless felt
by the vast majority that family separation was
undesirable and that reintegration should occur,
whenever possible.
“I feel very happy. Who doesn’t feel good when a
child is returning to their own home?” (Mother of
female child domestic worker, Nepal)
Finding 2: Children need to feel
safe, loved and wanted in order
for reintegration to work
Nearly all of those children in Mexico, Moldova
and Nepal who did not want to return home
or who expressed misgivings about doing
so were those who felt that they would
be unsafe or treated unkindly or unfairly in
their homes or communities of origin. In the
Mexican cohort, all boys had experienced
family violence of some kind. The intensive
therapeutic programme that each underwent
at JUCONI House was designed to help them
deal with and acknowledge the pain of their
past, and to support them to develop the
requisite skills to communicate, re-establish
relationships and ultimately move ahead with
their lives. This intensive work with each boy
was carried out over a period of many months,
both individually and alongside their family,
who also received high levels of support over
extended periods of time. One of the main
goals of these interventions was to ensure that
violence of all kinds had been eliminated from
these relationships, in individuals’ behaviour,
and in the family environment more generally.
Until this prerequisite could be guaranteed,
reintegration was not seen as a safe or viable
option for children. In some cases, when risks
were posed to the minimum security of the child,
reintegration efforts for affected boys were halted
and boys returned to JUCONI House, from
where they could continue to work alongside
their families to improve relations, but from a
place of safety. It was from this secure base
that educators encouraged the 13-year-old boy
mentioned on p11 to work to build a relationship
with his father, who was also undergoing a
therapeutic process. The elimination of violence
is an essential ingredient in the creation of an
environment conducive to the reintegration of
boys in this context.

In Moldova, boys’ and girls’ concerns about
reintegration were less about the unsuitability
or insecurity of their family environment and
more about how they would be treated in school
and in the community more generally, where
they worried they would be seen as stupid or
looked down upon. Family separation for these
children was not motivated by violence per se,
but rather by poverty, parental migration and
the perception that these boys and girls had
special educational needs that required them to
be cared for in an institution.13
Family violence
was a problem for a small number of children,
and social workers and other specialists were
put in place to evaluate home placements and
to monitor the appropriateness of reintegration.
These concerns about a lack of safety in the
domestic sphere for boys and girls co-existed
alongside the anxieties of nearly all children
about how they would be treated in the public
sphere. Specialists responsible for organising
children’s reintegration recognised this reality
and spent time supporting teachers and others
to better understand the circumstances and
needs of returning boys and girls. The result was
a high level of acceptance among teachers and
peers of the challenges that reintegrated children
face, and significant efforts on the part of both
groups to support children as necessary.
Nepali children’s concerns about reintegration
were in some ways similar to those of the boys
and girls who were reintegrated from institutional
care in Moldova. Some boys and girls in this
context feared maltreatment, particularly at
the hands of step-parents, and the challenges
of living with parents who quarrel a great deal
and/or abuse alcohol. However, the major
preoccupation of returning children was the
dread of stigmatisation and social exclusion by
neighbours and others in the community as a
result of their having worked as child domestic
workers, a job with very low social status.
In all three case study countries, boys and girls
emphasised this need to feel secure both inside
and outside their homes, in the schools and
communities where they would live, study, work
and play. These aspects of reintegration were
said to be much more important than was the
need to have their material needs met. Children
in Nepal, for example, were well aware of the
constrained circumstances to which they were
returning.
“I will help my mother when I have free time. [My
wishes] may not get fulfilled due to work. I have
to bring grass from the forest. After that, I have
to cook. I go to school. And I have to work at
home too. In the evening, one [person] stays at
home and cooks dinner. The other one will go to
work. There is lots of work. I will not be able to
complete homework from school. We don’t have
enough time.” (Girl, Nepal)
This is not to say that material conditions are
irrelevant, and indeed in Mexico a good home
environment, and the move from chaos and
dirty living conditions to families being able to
keep the home clean, was seen as one positive
indication of wider change in families. However,
here it was felt that the importance of these
conditions should not be over-emphasised and
that improvements in material conditions could
also happen after the child returned home.
“[Sometimes] you think a family has to be doing
really well before a boy can go back, but then
you understand that the family can work on
improvements when the boy is at home.”
(JUCONI staff member, Mexico)
While poverty was a reality for nearly all families
who participated in this study, and parents/
caregivers sought financial and material
assistance whenever possible and/or appropriate
(see below), most recognised the key importance
of acceptance, love and security for reintegrated
children, as expressed by a mother living in rural
Nepal.
“I feel very good and I am happy about her return
home. She is safe here.” (Mother of girl, Kavre)
13 In reality, very few children had such specialised needs that they required institutional care.

Finding 3: Whether or not a
child wants or is able to return
home depends to a large extent
on whether the original causes
of their separation have been
addressed
Despite the fact that nearly all children and
families involved in this research did not want
to live apart from each other, reintegration was
not in every instance desirable, possible or in
a child’s best interest. Whether or not a child
wants or is able to return home depends to a
large extent on why he or she left in the first
place, and whether the factors which motivated
children to leave had been addressed. In the
Moldova case study, children were separated
from their families because of a widespread
government policy of institutionalisation. When
this policy changed and family care was
prioritised, plans were put in place for each
child to return to his or her family or to find a
permanent alternative family placement. While
many children and their families recognised that
separation had provided some ‘advantages’
– reduced financial pressures, for example, or
free care and housing for children of migrant
workers – the vast majority would have preferred
to have stayed together. In cases such as these,
reintegration was the resolution of a problem
that had been created by the state (and taken
advantage of by certain parents and social
service providers). Concerns about children’s
safety and the quality of parental care were
not usually in question. Boys and girls were
sad about leaving their friends and some were
fearful about their new life, but all wanted to be
reintegrated.
“I wanted to go home because I was missing my
parents. But at home I do not have friends.” (Boy,
Moldova)
The situation was not so straightforward for
children in the Nepal and Mexico case studies,
many of whom had left home for very specific
personal and familial reasons. Some of these
motives included the desire to earn money to
send back to their families (Nepal); to access
schooling or schooling of a better quality
(Nepal); to escape violence, quarrels and difficult
relationships in the home (Mexico, Nepal);
to reduce the financial burden on the family
(Nepal); to have greater independence (Mexico);
to get away from a discriminatory community
(Nepal); to engage in activities disapproved of by
family members (Mexico); and to seek a better
life in the city (Nepal). Once away from home,
separation was maintained by additional factors
such as parents being unwilling to accept a
child back (Mexico, Nepal); unfinished schooling
(Nepal); fears of early marriage (Nepal); and
controlling relationships with employers or others
(Mexico, Nepal).
Boys and girls and parents/caregivers in these
two countries were clear that the decision for
a child to live apart from his or her family was
complex and based on a constellation of factors.
Sometimes these choices were made by parents
or other family members.
“I felt very bad but I thought that it was better
for her to be out of [the] home where she was
always yelled at. [I thought she] would be safe
and get the opportunity to study.” (Mother of girl,
Sindhupalchok, Nepal)
At other times, children made the decision to
leave or shared the decision making with their
parents. More than half of the child respondents
in Nepal said that they had actively wanted to
become domestic workers and had themselves
chosen to take on this work.
Girl, Nepal: “I asked my mother [to go to
Kathmandu]. She said if you want to go you can,
or don’t go and you can stay here and study. I
told her that they will educate me there so I will
go. I discussed with my mother.”
Interviewer: “If you hadn’t come here, was it
possible for you to stay home and study?”
Girl: “Yes, it was possible.”
Likewise, in Mexico, boys often made their own
decision to leave their families because they
could no longer tolerate the violence to which
they were exposed, or because of deteriorating
relationships with their parents or step-parents.
“Throughout Santi’s mother’s relationship with

his stepfather (the father of his mother’s two
younger children) Santi had witnessed many
violent situations. He wanted to leave, especially
when he saw his mother being beaten. He was
also harassed in his neighbourhood, bullied by
other children.” (JUCONI therapist)
In addition to their participation in the decision
to live apart from their families, children also
played a critical role in choosing whether or
not to reintegrate. Nearly all children in Nepal
took the decision to return home, independent
of their parents/caregivers. In only three
cases did families take the initiative in asking
children to come back. For reintegration to
take place in Mexico, boys in JUCONI House
needed their families to want them back, a
sentiment parents and others expressed after
an extensive therapeutic process in which they
had begun to reflect and work on their own
emotional issues and had come to understand
the reasons for their child’s behaviour. Just as
important, however, was a boy’s own decision
to make this move. Evidence from all three
case studies strongly suggests that children
have considered views about whether it is in
their interests to reintegrate and, if so, when
and how reintegration should take place. These
decisions cannot be made unilaterally: boys’ and
girls’ participation is critical to the success and
sustainability of the process.
Finding 4: Reintegration needs to
be tailored to context and to the
specific needs and circumstances
of the child
Given the numerous and complex reasons for
family separation, reintegration must be tailored
to the specific needs of individual children and
the context in which they live. Boys in Mexico,
separated because of deeply entrenched
violence in the home, needed intensive support
to deal with the impact of this violence, whereas
many of the children in Moldova and Nepal,
separated for other reasons, had different sets
of needs and required different levels of support
from varied sources. Depending as well on their
individual circumstances, and their experiences
before and since separation, some boys and girls
needed more specialised and intensive support
than others. This was found, for example, among
four girls in the Nepal cohort, who were aged
between 14 and 18 and had become eligible for
marriage while living apart from their families in
Kathmandu. Not wanting to return home for fear
of becoming a wife before they were ready, some
did not seek reintegration. The role of supporting
agencies in instances such as these is to work
with girls, their families and communities to share
perspectives and to try to bring all parties to a
mutually agreed upon position.
Evidence from Mexico and Moldova also
highlights the importance of conducting
individual assessments with separated children
and their families in advance of reintegration.
Doing so can provide important information not
only about the child and his or her needs and
circumstances, but also about their families
and their relationships with parents/caregivers
and siblings. In Moldova, the majority of boys
and girls expressed some frustration about
this process, the purpose of which they felt
was unclear and inadequately explained. Many
said that reintegration was presented as just
changing schools rather than being about
leaving residential care or moving to live with
parent(s), extended family or into foster care.
Moreover, the assessment process itself was
described as unsatisfactory by some.
“The social assistance people came and told
us that the school will be closed. We were also
visited by some ladies at school who asked us
where we would like to go, what we would like
to do, but I do not know where they were from.
They had papers and asked us to read them.
They interrogated us. They asked me why I did
not want to go to the community school and
where I wanted to go. Those questions irritated
me.” (Girl, Călăraşi, Moldova)
These sentiments were not shared by boys
in the Mexican cohort, perhaps because the
reintegration process was far more prolonged for
these individuals and the assessment process
took place slowly over a period of many months
or, in some cases, years. JUCONI educators use

a therapeutic process to support children and
parents to gain insights into their experiences,
to improve self-esteem and emotional well-
being, and to build healthy relationships. The
availability of human and financial resources to
support this sustained work was far greater in
JUCONI’s work in Mexico than with the national
organisations working in Moldova, and especially
so compared to Nepal, where CWISH staff time
and funds were extremely limited.
A crucial component of the individualised
assessment process involves supporting
children and families to openly acknowledge
their fears and anxieties about reintegration.
Different parties can have markedly different
views on how the experience will and should
unfold. When these opinions are discussed and
mutually agreed upon in advance of reunification
and in the early stages of reintegration,
individuals’ worries can be dealt with and any
unrealistic expectations can be managed.
Negotiating this tricky process was central to
the pre-reintegration process in Mexico where,
for example, educators encouraged mothers
to maintain as ordinary a home environment as
possible by not providing their sons with their
favourite meal every time the child came for a
visit.14
Children’s achievements while in JUCONI
House were also placed in context for parents in
order to avoid situations such as that faced by
one boy whose parents expected him to quickly
finish secondary school because he had learned
to read and write while he was away from home.
The social, emotional and material expectations
that children and families have of one another
are unique in every case. Evidence from Mexico
suggests that when external actors, such as
JUCONI educators, support households and
families to create a personalised family plan, the
reintegration process can be custom-designed
to meet the specific needs and circumstances
of each returning child. By articulating a range
of objectives, from personal care (nutrition,
dental health, medical check-ups) to economic
goals (additional income generating ideas,
efforts to access government support) to
family functioning (roles and responsibilities,
acceptable forms of discipline, decision-making
authority), individualised ‘programmes’ can
be set up and implemented by each family
member. The structure these plans give not
only provides a focus for children and families in
the initial settling-in period, but the exercise of
developing them can promote communication
and mutual understanding. Referring to these
plans on a regular basis also provides an
effective mechanism for ‘checking in’ on how the
reintegration process is working for everyone.
Findings from the case studies in Moldova and
Nepal suggest that these personalised family
plans would also work well in these contexts,
where children’s and families’ expectations
regarding reintegration are sometimes different
and clarity is needed, and where individual or
familial circumstances may or may not have
changed in the period of separation. Returning
children may have had experiences of violence
and abuse while living away from home, as was
common for one-fifth of respondents in Nepal
and in Moldova.
“There is nothing good in that house. I don’t
like beatings, scoldings, and not letting me
go out. They also give me lots of work.” (Boy,
Sindhupalchok, Nepal, describing his treatment as
a domestic worker)
14 Home visits are a key component of the pre-reunification process for boys at JUCONI House. Initial visits are short and, over time, take
place with greater frequency and for a longer duration. Visits of this kind were not a part of the reintegration work that took place in
Moldova or Nepal, most likely because of the scale of the de-institutionalisation process (Moldova) and cost (Nepal).

Finding 5: Reintegration
is a process that requires
preparation, planning, time and
holistic, coordinated support
Research in Mexico, Moldova and Nepal
demonstrates that in order for reintegration
to be sustainable, it needs to be understood
not as a one-off event but as a process that
requires thorough preparation, planning, time
and resources. In addition to the importance
of individual assessment and the development
of reintegration plans for each child and
family (discussed above), the Mexico case
study highlights the positive outcomes for all
involved when reintegration is allowed to take
place gradually. The emphasis of the JUCONI
programme on the child and family spending
increasingly longer periods of time together
before reintegration provides everyone with the
opportunity to get to know and get used to
one another again, thereby promoting mutual
understanding and acceptance.
“When [family-team staff] come [for weekly visits]
they get us involved in games, we work in teams
and we have seen that we can play with them
[children]. We have changed; they have helped
us a lot. When Esteban visits, he plays with
my children, they talk together.” (Sister (primary
caregiver) of Esteban, 15)
This process-oriented approach to reintegration
continues even after a boy has returned to live
with his family. Such a move is not considered
the end of the exercise, rather a part of a long-
term process of change that is underway.
Interviews with boys and families highlighted the
anxieties and stresses that often accompany the
personal and familial adjustments required in the
first few months of reintegration. JUCONI calls
this period ‘protected time’ and evidence from
this study suggests that often a good deal of
support is required at this stage.
Despite the differences in context, and the
reasons for family separation and reintegration,
the types of support needed by children and
families in Mexico were similar to those required
in Moldova and Nepal. These included emotional
and relationship support for children and parents/
caregivers.
“In my case it was the headteacher of my class.
After lessons, she talked to me to ask about
my relationships with colleagues, if they do not
offend me; she used to give me useful advice,
what to do, what not to do, how to overcome
jokes, how not to pay attention to children who
were bullying me.” (Girl, Falesti, Moldova)
“We feel the [social workers’] support; they
encourage us to keep going. It’s really nice
to feel that somebody is concerned with your
problems.” (Girl, Falesti, Moldova)
“It is difficult without a social worker. With a
social worker it is much easier to do things. I am
not talking only about money. It is more about
emotional and moral support. She knows better
what rights we have.” (Mother, Falesti, Moldova)
“I don’t like (in my community) when my friends
tease me: ‘You are in a low class”, because I
went to Kathmandu and I lost my studying. My
friends reached a higher class during that time
and I feel sad.” (Girl, 15 years old, Sindhupalchok,
Nepal)
Academic support for children and assistance
with material requirements for school also played
an important role in ensuring the sustainability of
reintegration for some boys and girls.
“We work with these children after they
come back from school. We help them
with homework. It is quite difficult for these
children; the national general curriculum is
quite complicated for them. There is quite a
big difference between the curricula they used
to study and the present one. These children
always complain that they have to do too much
homework.” (Educator at a community centre,
Călăraşi, Moldova)
“It is very difficult for them. I would like somebody
to help them with mathematics, physics,
chemistry and even Russian.”15
(Mother, Ungheni,
Moldova)

Interviewer, Nepal: “What are the things they
can help you with, so that your child can stay
with you and study?”
Mother of girl: “For education, things like
exercise books, pens, fees, and school uniform.
It is difficult for us to manage that. So if we get
help from outside to cover that, it will be easier
for her to study. If my child gets help, it is helpful
for us too.”
The level of satisfaction that children and parents
in Moldova and Nepal had with the provision
of this support was variable. In Moldova, the
enormous caseload of social workers forced
them to prioritise the most needy despite
knowing that many others required their help
and advice. In focus group discussions, these
specialists revealed their struggles with knowing
how to support children and families for whom
there was insufficient help available. In Nepal,
the costs of transporting a child home to an
often distant location was one of many financial
costs incurred by CWISH and others involved
in reintegration, though parents and employers
did sometimes contribute to transport costs. In
both of these countries, the lack of resources
– both human and financial – to support
families through the reintegration process was
considered by all respondents to be a significant
problem, particularly considering the high levels
of poverty in which most lived.16
Money was
the number one resource that children and
caregivers said would help, a sentiment echoed
by a whole host of specialists, agency staff and
social workers in both countries.
Most forms of support required by children and
families are interdependent, and the wide range
of stakeholders involved in the reintegration
process requires a high level of coordination
and collaboration. The importance of smooth
communication and the clear division of roles
and tasks is essential. All stakeholders need
to know how the process of reintegration is
going to unfold. In Moldova, parents/caregivers
and children expressed frustration that they
often did not know what support was going to
be provided to them, or when and why. The
complicated nature of the social aid system
made it difficult to understand who made the
decision to provide or decline support and what
the process was to receive this support. This
need for transparency in the system was very
important to families and children in this context,
but also to those in Mexico and Nepal, where the
majority of services and supports were provided
not by the state but by NGOs and communities.
Detailing this support was a fundamental
component of JUCONI’s programme,
underscored by the view that families and
children required clarity in order to minimise
their already significant anxieties. In Nepal,
however, long distances between Kathmandu
and children’s home communities presented
challenges to ongoing communication of this
kind. This situation was particularly common in
places where CWISH was relying on partners to
provide systematic follow up.
Part of ensuring that appropriate support is
available to reintegrated children and families
is working with a whole host of others to
understand their needs and circumstances. In
Moldova, for example, involving teachers and
school administrators from the very early stages
helped to create a positive, non-discriminatory
attitude towards returning children. When given
information about the reasons why children had
been placed in institutions – not usually because
of special educational needs but more frequently
as a result of poverty – educators were able to
set aside their misconceptions and create with
their students a positive classroom and school
environment. So too were peers, who proved
open to learning about and understanding
reintegrated children’s circumstances. The
phased approach to data collection undertaken
in this research revealed how children’s early
concerns about fitting into community schools
dissipated after an initial period of adjustment
of up to six to nine months, with some children
taking more time to feel settled than others.
15 These subjects are a part of the national curriculum but were not taught at the residential schools previously attended by reintegrated
children where a simplified curriculum was taught.
16 For example in Moldova, even when children received access to social care, their caregivers often lacked basic needs such as firewood,
an insulated home, food and clothes. Many of the rural families to which most children returned in Nepal lived in absolute poverty.

“The first day was really difficult. I did not speak
to anybody and I was very nervous. At the
beginning, my classmates did not talk to me, but
after a while we became friends.” (Girl, Moldova)
Evidence from Nepal also demonstrates that
the acceptance of reintegrated boys and girls
is enhanced when members of the wider
community are prepared in advance of their
return, including health workers, teachers,
neighbours, and others. The benefits of this
work are not necessarily immediately evident
(i.e. when the child first arrives in the community
– as seen above), but may take time to reveal
themselves. By investigating the different stages
of the reintegration process, this research was
able to document the changed attitudes of
children, parents/caregivers, families and others
over time. The perspectives shared in the later
stages of reintegration (between 6 to 18 months
after reunification) were markedly more positive
than those expressed before and immediately
after the reintegration process had begun.
In all three countries, the study revealed that
after an initial period of settling in, nearly all of
the children’s fears about familial acceptance
and social integration were not realised. These
features of children’s experience are essential,
but so too are their financial needs and those
of their families. With poverty a driving force
in family separation, it remains to be seen if
reintegration will be sustainable in the longer
term in the absence of these basic requirements.

Children’s reintegration takes place in an
imperfect world. It is a complicated process that
needs to account for the specific needs of each
individual child in a world of risk. Widespread
consultation is necessary – especially with
children – in order to make extremely challenging
judgments about things like whether a child
should remain in a risky and harmful work
environment or be reintegrated, without support,
to a potentially abusive family, possibly only to
leave again. Some key policy recommendations
for ensuring sustainable, individualised
reintegration in the context of these complexities
include the following.
1. Allow sufficient time and resources for
reintegration. Sustainable reintegration takes
time and resources to be set up, implemented
and monitored. The individual needs of the
child and the context in which he or she lives
should determine how this process unfolds.
Fixed timelines imposed by external actors or
unilaterally imposed by the child or parents/
caregivers can be harmful because they
may place undue pressure on an already
challenging undertaking.
2. Develop individual plans for child and
family. Each child and family has different
sets of needs for sustainable reintegration,
and children and families benefit from having
a clear idea of the reintegration process and
the support they will receive. Children and
parents/caregivers need support to share their
anxieties and expectations about reintegration
and to develop a plan together for how they
are going to make the process work.
3. Address the root causes of separation.
The sustainability of reintegration is contingent
upon the acknowledgement and resolution
of the problems and circumstances that led
to family separation in the first place. These
are multi-factorial and must be addressed in
holistic ways.
4.Ensure children and families have access
to social protection. Social protection is
critical to sustainable reintegration as poverty
is one of the biggest impediments to children’s
reintegration. These protective measures
should be linked to other forms of support.
5. Provide other forms of support too.
Financial and material support for reintegration
is important but on its own is not enough.
One of the most important indicators of the
possibility of successful reintegration is the
overall quality of relationships within the
family, and support is needed to nurture
these relationships. Support is also needed
to ensure integration into schools and wider
communities.
Ultimately, as with all child rights, the state is
responsible for ensuring that children can return
to their families if it is in their best interests
to do so. However, the state may delegate
responsibility to national NGOs who often have
valuable expertise in the reintegration of children.
The state must ensure proper coordination
between all service providers, and quality
control.
Recommendations

Family for Every Child
info@familyforeverychild.org
www.familyforeverychild.org

Going Home: Children’s reintegration in Mexico, Moldova and Nepal

More Related Content

Going Home: Children’s reintegration in Mexico, Moldova and Nepal