The Global Deinstitutionalisation of Care, No Recourse to Public Funds and Self-Care for Social Workers

We begin this edition with Elizabeth Harlow’s article on global ‘deinstitutionalisation’ – the move away from residential child care provision and the development of foster care in its place. Drawing on attachment theory and research on out-of-home care, Harlow’s argument suggests the advantages of family-based care. While Harlow’s argument is generally supportive of the development of fostering systems in the global south, it also reports on some of the organisational and procedural challenges involved and acknowledges questions about whether the greater use of fostering may be viewed as the imposition of Western thinking and practices, ill-suited to local cultures and practices of care. Tuhinul Islam and Leon Fulcher’s article is a response to Harlow’s. Their article highlights concerns about the difficulties in transferring research knowledge from the global north to the global south. It also argues that particular welfare and funding arrangements in some developing countries mean that deinstitutionalisation may neither be viable, nor free up resources, in the ways claimed by those who favour this policy agenda. In conclusion they argue for greater recognition of cross-cultural and religious differences when the development of fostering systems is being considered. Koyrun Begum and colleagues offer reflections about the implementation of the No Recourse Early Action Model (NOREAM) initiative in one local authority in England to help families subject to ‘no recourse to public funds’ policies. These policies have imposed strict restrictions on the social and welfare rights of migrants in the UK who are subject to immigration controls, but have largely fallen beneath the radar of the social work profession’s attention, despite the excellent work of some committed organisations and individuals. Begum and colleagues explore how the NOREAM has been designed with the