Position, professional expertise and functions of an educator of child care homes in Lithuania

Speaking about professionals, working with children at child care homes in Lithuania, first of all we encounter a problem of terminology. This problem rises, because in various countries and languages we call these professionals differently. In Lithuania we call them ”aukletojai”. We also use the word ”aukletojas” when speaking about both professionals, working directly with children at kindergartens, and parents, as all parents are educators of their children. We suppose, that the word ”aukletojas” corresponds to the German “erzieher”, and “aukleti” to “erziehen”. Every “aukletojas” in Lithuania clearly realizes, that he is a pedagogue, because in this country every professional, involved in educational work with children – an ”aukletojas”, a teacher, a social pedagogue and a special pedagogue – is called a pedagogue. In this context it is essential to conceive that in Lithuania an ”educator” and a ”social pedagogue” are different pedagogical professions and that none of the ”aukletojas” identify himself as a social pedagogue.

Changing Europe and The Relevance of Care and The Caring Professions

The aim of the paper is to introduce the challenges of the international care debate of the last ten years in order to grasp basic social needs, to analyse their treatment in the public and private sphere and to look at the orientation of professional answers by the care-professions. The concept of care enhances the societal dealing with - or ignoring of - different forms of dependency on informal and formal personal and social services throughout the life-cycle (child-care, nursing sick or handicapped persons, supporting the elderly) and in special life situations (from help to lone mothers and their children, via help to drug-addicts to help for homeless people). All societies have different approaches to deal with these life-situations, they do so by employ-ing various mixtures of: familial support, mostly provided by women, social politics, organized by the state, public and/or private social services. This welfare-mix shows different combinations of private and public obligations, paid and und unpaid work, professional and laymen's tasks based on a specific understanding of mo-rality and justice embedded in the gender structure and intergenerational relationships. The importance of social work as a profession in this context differs according to the historical developments and cultural traditions. Characteristic for the profile of social work is the rele-vance of a care ethics and the existence of social rights, the tension of mothering and profes-sional methods, the relationship between help, denial and punishment and the ways of institu-tionalisation. The actuality of this debate is closely intertwined with the restructuring of societal bonds in the face of globalisation, the political reorganisation of states, the changes in the living to-gether of different generations and both sexes and the consequences for the organisation and contents of welfare. Looking at Germany and Eastern Europe two new phenomena of social relevance for the dis-cussion of care work and care needs can be taken as an example: the extent of cheap illegal women laborers travelling between east and west, especially Polish women working intermit-tendly in private care for old people and the highly organized traffiking of women from Russia to Germany to work in the sex business. The care debate entails a reframing of welfare issues in the light of social justice between classes, ethnicities and gender groups.

Orphanhood, Poverty and the Care Dilemma: Review of Global Policy Trends

The care and protection of children experiencing orphanhood presents a major child-care policy challenge. This paper draws on a review of the literature to document divergent conceptualizations of orphanhood, how the hurdles for the care of orphans reflect wider issues of poverty and inequality, as well as the ways in which different care interventions (familial, institutional, community-based and rights-based) might be appropriated for children in need. It is argued that the map of contemporary orphanhood overlaps with the contours of global poverty, inequality, age-based deprivations and marginalization. An example of a ‘globalised’ model of orphan care, namely SOS Children’s Villages, is presented and its implications for policy are examined. The paper highlights the significance of fighting poverty and enhancing the care-giving capabilities of extended families in the care and protection of children from a rights-based perspective. It suggests that external interventions should primarily address the structural causes of poverty and marginality, rather than amplifying inequalities through the selective support of orphans in economically vulnerable communities.

Welfare Lobby Groups responding to Globalisation: A Comparison of the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and the UK Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG)

The past decade has witnessed a period of intense economic globalisation. The growing significance of international trade, investment, production and financial flows appears to be curtailing the autonomy of individual nation states. In particular, globalisation appears to be encouraging, if not demanding, a decline in social spending and standards. However, many authors believe that this thesis ignores the continued impact of national political and ideological pressures and lobby groups on policy outcomes. In particular, it has been argued that national welfare consumer and provider groups remain influential defenders of the welfare state. For example, US aged care groups are considered to be particularly effective defenders of social security pensions. According to this argument, governments engaged in welfare retrenchment may experience considerable electoral backlash (Pierson 1996; Mishra 1999). Yet, it is also noted that governments can take action to reduce the impact of such groups by reducing their funding, and their access to policy-making and consultation processes. These actions are then justified on the basis of removing potential obstacles to economic competitiveness (Pierson 1994; Melville 1999).

Orphan Care in Russia

Current public opinion about the residential care system in contemporary Russia is extremely negative. A majority of Russians, both citizens and professionals, consider that family placement is the best arrangement for orphaned children. The year 2007 was announced as the Year of the Child in Russia. The majority of officials interpreted it as the year of de-institutionalization of the residential care system for children in Russia. De-institutionalization is mostly identified as reform focused on family placement instead of placement in institutions. Vladimir Fridlyanov, the executive director of the Ministry of Science and Education, announced in May, 2007 that the government is going to transfer 120,000 children from institutions into families every year from 2007 until 2010 and reduce the number of residential care institutions by one-third (Nesterova 2007). But the likelihood of family placement is small, with the exception of the adoption of infants without serious pathologies, and the attempts of precipitant de-institutionalization (when children’s homes are closed and children are distributed among families) have failed (children were returned into children homes). According to the opinion of the Ministry, the key obstacle to effective de-institutionalization is the lack of professionals in adoption and foster care (Vazhdaeva 2006).

The Care and Shelter of Children and Adolescents in Brazil: Expressions of Social Issues

The future of Brazilian children who have the protection offered by familial bonds is threatened by social inequities that force them to seek shelter and grow up in shelters. According to the Institute of Applied Economic Research, an estimated 20,000 children and adolescents are served by institutions. The majority of these children are afro-descendent males between the ages of seven and fifteen years old. Of those researched, 87.6% have families (58.2% receive visits from their families, 22.7% are rarely visited by their families and 5.8 are legally prohibited from contacting or being by their families). The percentage of children and adolescents “without families” or with “missing families” is 11.3%. There is no information available for 2% of the children and adolescents residing in shelters. The principle factors that necessitate the placement of Brazilian children in institutions that provide care and shelter include poverty (including children forced to work, sell drugs or beg, for example); domestic violence; chemical dependence of parents or guardians; homelessness; death or parents or guardian; imprisonment of their parents; and sexual abuse committed by their parents or guardians. The issue of abandoned children and adolescents and their care and shelter in the Brazilian context expresses a perverse violation of Child and Adolescent Rights.