Private Nonprofit
Organizations for Child Welfare
Cases of South
Korea and People’s Republic of China
Yoon
Ji Lee
Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies, 232 Wangsanri,
Mohyunmyeon, Cheoin-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea, 464-843
Abstract: Private organizations and public sector regarding child welfare
services have been two main actors in improving the quality of children’s lives.
In this paper, the author examines two cases of children social service and the
background of social policies regarding child welfare. Combined with a theory
that explains the importance of childcare services, the author also goes
in-depth to suggest the compatible and sound model of child welfare after
assessing the current limitation.
Keywords: child welfare; public sector; private organization; nonprofit
service; China; South Korea; compensatory education approach
0 Introduction
While South Korean government is constantly increasing its
role on child welfare work, private child welfare institutions also take their
responsibilities to support the government policies. As Kamerman once suggested
that public and private sectors of social services both have roles in
contributing to molding social policies, it is critical to understand how two
different sectors that provide social services operate in one society[1]
(Kamerman, S. 1983). However, it is not easy to acknowledge the services that
private institutions provide aside from those of the government or public
institutions. In order to understand the current state of private operation of
nonprofit organizations on children welfare, three things had to be done:
understanding of historical background of social policy regarding child’s
welfare, close observation of current nonprofit organizations, and thorough
research of archive materials.
1 Background
The
idea of children’s rights has a long history. However, the actual documentation
of such ideas has started from early 20th century. By 1924, the
basic ideology of the rights of the child was consolidated by Geneva
Declaration of the Rights of the Child. The declaration clarified every mankind
is responsible for providing the best for the child. In addition, the General
Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the
Child in 1959, which consists of ten clauses, calling for a global
attention to the child. Later on, the United Nation unanimously adopted the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989[2].
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most recent document that
reflects a new perspective of a child as an individual that actively exercises
one’s own rights[3]. This was the first global
agreement that was enacted with legal influence for nations to assume the
responsibility for the realization of children’s rights[4].
In
case of Korea, the lifestyle of children rapidly changed during
industrialization and urbanization in the 1960s. Due to severe poverty and
social turmoil, child welfare could only serve as a means of emergency relief.
Until 1970s, private foreign organizations provided various kinds of aids. One
significant area of the numerous aids was an orphanage because of countless war
orphans after the end of the Korean War[5].
Since then, the increase in the number of orphanages for relief efforts
fostered numerous child welfare service facilities. Though the degree of
welfare did not go further than relief work, the welfare facilities began to be
classified based on the demographics and the needs of clients. Also the
government has started to supervise such facilities. The legislation of the
Children's Welfare Law in 1981 expanded the scope of the recipients of child
welfare services. During 1990s, countless institutions were founded to accommodate
better child welfare services.
2 Organization
Studied: Loving Neighbors Korea
Not
only have the global organizations including Save the Children committed to the
welfare of Korean children, but also have the med-sized private nonprofit
organizations spurted since 1990. One of the examples is Loving Neighbors Korea.
Loving Neighbors is a private social welfare organization that operates several
welfare centers, including the ones for children to provide appropriate
services for the minors of low-income families and the underprivileged and to promote
a community where they can hope for a better future.
The chief director of Loving Neighbors perceived the role of
the organization as a private social service distributor. Thus, the organization
should mainly assist those who are in need. However, in the process of the aid,
the director identified the role of his organization as a supplementary one,
not the main actor of welfare. The director specified that the government
should be the main actor in distribution of services, given the specific
historical background of Korea and its development in welfare since the launch
of the government[6].
Loving Neighbors currently operates three local child
centers, a kindergarten, a comprehensive social welfare center and a youth
career support center domestically and internationally. Each center has diverse
programs from after-school classes to adjustment education for children from
multicultural families.
To operate institutions, Loving Neighbors is financially
supported by funds from a few committed individuals and companies that are
willing to donate. Its budget is divided by kinds of services and about 80
percent is used for childcare services. Four centers are partially supported by
local governments, though the portion varies according to the types of
services. For example, local governments cover about half of the budget for
local child centers. On the other hand, the governments support only 20 percent
of the budget of the youth career support center. The rest is solely sponsored
by the organization, Loving Neighbors.
The chief director of the organization
claims that the government should take lead in the service delivery system. It
only makes sense for the director that the government is constantly expanding
its scope of influence on childcare. The director also explains that local
child center was initially operated autonomously, but it is now partly under
the government aid and supervision. This is not a rare trend in South Korea. In
cases of primary education, kindergartens, public and private ones have coexisted
so far, but the government is rapidly involving in.
Even though the compatible model of public
and private sectors of social services is for the public sector plays the main
actor and private sectors supplement the rest, the question is the capacity of
the public sector: the government. The director acknowledged some limitations
in current situation. If the government takes main responsibility of child
welfare, the inefficiency of bureaucracy is inevitable side effect. The
director foresees many trials and errors until appropriate budget and
allocation of the human resources are established.
The director emphasizes the importance of
adequate social policies as well. It would not be sufficient just with human
resources and enough funds. The field currently requires more professionals
with thorough understanding of the work and with abilities to deal with various
roles. Furthermore, a mature social sense that would not stigmatize the
recipients of such services is vital for sustaining sound social services[7].
3 Social
Services of People’s Republic of China
In the case of China, the social welfare system is
relatively limited that some scholars label it as “remedial social welfare”
(Liu, 2006)[8].
Child welfare is also used as a means of social relief, dealing exclusively
with orphans and without de facto caregivers. The Chinese government operates
China Center for Children’s Welfare and Adoption (CCCWA), which is responsible
for inter-country adoption work. The government also develops and maintains
National Children’s Welfare Information Management System, the first
information census system for orphans and disabled children. There are certain
amounts of welfare homes for children, which are also operated by the state and
local government. The ultimate goals for orphanage homes are to accommodate
homeless children and function as social control to make the society stable
(Liu & Zhu, 2009)[9].
The funds solely come from appropriations by state and local financial
department. About 40 percent of the budget is used for the livelihood of the
children. They have systematic operation system, such as criteria for verifying
new orphans, and are regularly inspected by the Department of Civil Affairs[10].
Since the history of the
development of child welfare system is relatively short, Chinese public child
welfare institutions face some limitations such as policy gap, delivery problem
and financial difficulty. However, the government is continuously increasing
funding and infrastructures to improve the levels of both quantity and quality
of child welfare services and to empower civil society (Zhang, 2013).
4 Discussions
The chief director saw the main purpose
of child welfare is to increase sense of belonging, psychological stability and
chances of education among the children of underprivileged families. This is
also shown from the direction of Chinese government’s endeavor to improve its
welfare system. From both of these two cases, the underlying assumption can be
inferred that providing high-quality education and child care services can
significantly reduce social costs in the future. This point of view can be
understood in the same context with that of Deborah A. Phillips, a professor at
Georgetown University. In her research about childcare for children in poverty,
Phillips suggested “compensatory education approach (p. 472)[11]” as a long-standing
strategy for childcare policies to enrich the children’s environments and
ensure their successful school life. Through analyzing profile samples of child
care centers for low-income families, she stated, “there is increasing
agreement among both researchers and policy makers that high-quality early
childhood programs can ameliorate some of the negative consequences of growing
up in poverty (p. 487][12].” She calls for an
extensive research on the quality of the care and the equity in distribution of
services to move families from income-maintenance programs to financial
self-sufficiency, and thus reduce welfare costs (Phillips, 1994).
Reference
List
[1] Sheila B.
Kamerman. The
New Mixed Economy of Welfare: Public and Private Social Work (January-February 1983) 28 (1): 5-10.doi: 10.1093/sw/28.1.5
[2] Choi, Woon-Sun. An analysis of the laws related to the child welfare in China
based on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 2003
[3] United NAtiona
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/childrenandyoungpeople/healthandwellbeing/b0074766/uncrc. 2012.
[4] Luisa Blanchfield. The UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child: Background and Policy Issues. CRS Report for Congress.
2009.
[5] Honyun-Kim et al. Child Welfare.
YangSuwon. 2011.
[6] Bin Sohn. The Chief Director of Loving
Neighbors Korea. Personal interview. 2013.
[7] Bin Sohn. The Fundamental Purpose of Child
Welfare. Retrieved from www.lovingneighbours.org. 2013.
[8] Liu,
J. T. Policy suggestions for social welfare for AIDS
orphans, in: Social Welfare, 9, 2006. pp.23-28.
[9] Liu Meng et al. Orphan Care in China.
Social Work and Society, 7 (1). 2009.
[10] Zhang Nini. China Struggles to Upgrade
Child Welfare. CCTV. 2013.
[11] Deborah A. Phillips et al. Child Care for
Children in Poverty: Opportunity or Inequity? Child Development. Wiley
Publication. 1994. Pp. 472 – 492.
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기