Global priority for the care of orphans and other vulnerable children: transcending problem definition challenges.

Background: Tens of millions of children lack adequate care, many having been separated from or lost one or both parents. Despite the problem's severity and its impact on a child's lifelong health and wellbeing, the care of vulnerable children-which includes strengthening the care of children within families, preventing unnecessary family separation, and ensuring quality care alternatives when reunification with the biological parents is not possible or appropriate-is a low global priority. This analysis investigates factors shaping the inadequate global prioritization of the care of vulnerable children. Specifically, the analysis focuses on factors internal to the global policy community addressing children's care, including how they understand, govern, and communicate the problem.

Methods: Drawing on agenda setting scholarship, we triangulated among several sources of data, including 32 interviews with experts, as well as documents including peer-reviewed literature and organizational reports. We undertook a thematic analysis of the data, using these to create a historical narrative on efforts to address children's care, and specifically childcare reform.

Results: Divisive disagreements on the definition and legitimacy of deinstitutionalization-a care reform strategy that replaces institution-based care with family-based care-may be hindering priority for children's care. Multiple factors have shaped these disagreements: a contradictory evidence base on the scope of the problem and solutions, divergent experiences between former Soviet bloc and other countries, socio-cultural and legal challenges in introducing formal alternative care arrangements, commercial interests that perpetuate support for residential facilities, as well as the sometimes conflicting views of impacted children, families, and the disability community. These disagreements have led to considerable governance and positioning difficulties, which have complicated efforts to coordinate initiatives, precluded the emergence of leadership that proponents universally trust, hampered the engagement of potential allies, and challenged efforts to secure funding and convince policymakers to act.

Conclusion: In order to potentially become a more potent force for advancing global priority, children's care proponents within international organizations, donor agencies, and non-governmental agencies working across countries will need to better manage their disagreements around deinstitutionalization as a care reform strategy.