the Shelter receives more help from ARC, the NGO, than from State institutions in recruiting volunteers. If anything, state institutions are more of a hindrance than a help in this regard as there are excessive delays between a volunteer’s expression of interest and the Children’s Department’s required approval of their applications. Mechanisms for participation Despite the explicit requirement in the Minimum Standards that all children should have various mechanisms through which they are consulted and their views taken seriously by institution of alternative care in the State, there are no formal such mechanisms at the Shelter. Although staff at the Shelter invite children to freely discuss any concerns they may have, there is no standard procedure for children to lodge complaints against a member of staff, management, other children, or any other issue that may arise during their stay at the Shelter. And, despite the formal adoption of the Minimum Standards, the policy documents according to which the Shelter is run, compiled many years previously, have not yet been changed. Efforts to draft new regulations compatible with the Standards are underway at the Department of Children in the Family Ministry but it is not known when they would be finalised. Staff at the Shelter have been told that both they and the children would have opportunities to provide their views and opinions on the drafts, and that results of these consultations would be taken into consideration in finalising the new policies. In the meantime, although Shelter staff are keen to introduce a complaints mechanism, and have raised the issue several times with the Department, it cannot be done. Like in Maafushi, therefore, it is difficult to assess whether children’s rights to participation are being afforded to them as is provided for by the UNCRC. Staff at the Shelter do consult with the children in organising special events and birthday celebrations, for example. However, whether children’s views are taken seriously in making decisions that affect their lives in other matters is difficult to judge without there being any formal provisions or mechanisms that require and encourage such participation. Staff at the Shelter are themselves excluded from important decisions affecting the lives of children they look after. They reported, for example, occasions when their opinions and views regarding whether or not a child was ready to leave the Shelter have been disregarded or overridden by the Department, often to the detriment of the child. In light of such occurrences, it is unlikely that children’s views in such matters are given much consideration when the authorities are making final decisions on such matters. 56