Ending Child Institutionalization

The detrimental effects of institutionalization on a child’s well-being are widely documented. Family based care alternatives such as kinship or foster care, are much more effective in providing care and protection for a child, and are sustainable options until family reunification can take place. The use of residential care should be strictly limited to specific cases where it may be necessary to provide temporary, specialized, quality care in a small group setting organized around the rights and needs of the child in a setting as close as possible to a family, and for the shortest possible period of time. The objective of such placement should be to contribute actively to the child’s reintegration with his/her family or, where this is not possible or in the best interests of the child, to secure his/her safe, stable, and nurturing care in an alternative family setting or supported independent living as young people transition to adulthood. 

Displaying 601 - 610 of 685

UNICEF,

Assessment of two recently reformed child protection projects in Georgia (Prevention of Infant Abandonment and De-institutionalisation (PIAD) and Family Support and Foster Care (FS&FC)). Includes detailed evaluation methodology and lessons learned.

Kevin Browne, Catherine Hamilton-Giachritsis, Rebecca Johnson, Mikael Ostergren ,

This article discusses the use of institutional care for children in Europe and shows that it remains common place despite the evidence of harm for children, including attachment disorder and developmental delay.

UNICEF Innocenti Reserach Centre,

A website that contains statistical information on children in 27 countries across Central and Eastern Europe. The site contains relevant child protection indicators, including the number of children in institutional care.

David Tolfree,

Save the Children's "First Resort" series focuses on the needs and rights of children who, for a wide variety of reasons, are lacking adequate parental care. This third paper in the First Resort series presents practical examples of the range of options available to policy-makers, practitioners and others with responsibilities for the care and protection of children without adequate parental care.

International Social Service and International Reference Center for the Rights of Children Deprived of their Family (ISS/IRC),

A brief 2-page overview of what steps should be taken if and when a social worker or other community worker admits a child to a residential institution.

Andrew Dunn and John Parry-Williams - UNICEF,

Detailed guidelines for the establishment of the Child Protection Service (CPS), designed to address the lack of regulations concerning standards in children’s institutions and the lack of departmental policy and procedures for assessing and assisting abused and at-risk children. Includes comprehensive set of CPS forms in 14 annexes.

Florence Martin and Tata Sudrajat,

Examines institutional and family care in post-Tsunami Indonesia. Includes situational analysis, key issues, and recommendations.

John Williamson and Malia Robinson,

An evaluation of a programme in Sri Lanka that aimed to resettle and reintegrate children affected by armed conflict, prevent and respond to child abuse, and develop community based alternatives to institutional care.

Kerry Olson, Zanele Sibanda Knight, and Geoff Foster,

A tool to encourage donors to fund community programs that keep children in family care, rather than simply funding orphanages. Describes the many strategies being used to invest in community-based care, and contains specific program examples.

International Social Service and International Reference Center for the Rights of Children Deprived of their Family (ISS/IRC),

A brief 2-page overview of appropriate residential institution characteristics. Includes information on staffing, and the optimum size of each family-like unit.