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 621 - 630 of 694

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.

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.

Florence Martin and Tata Sudrajat,

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

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.

Ines Bulic, Geert Freyhoff, Judith Klein, and Camilla Parker,

Advocates for the right of children with disabilities to live in the community. Provides recommendations on how to ensure a successful transition from institutional to community-based care. Focuses on the importance of family support and the right to education.

Judita Reichenberg and Anna Nordenmark,

Evaluation of two alternative care programmes in Georgia. Focus on contributions towards the construction of gatekeeping systems for alternative care services. Includes detailed lessons learned and recommendations.

International Save the Children Alliance,

Results of a survey examining the quality of institutional care in Sri Lanka. Highlights gaps in existing policies and procedures.

Richard Carter - EveryChild,

A report discussing the advent and perpetuation of institutional care in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union prior to and since the end of the communist regime. It also provides examples of family-based care as models of care to substitute institutional care and offers recommendations to donors, NGOs and governments for child care reform based on their experience in CEE and FSU.

Romania National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption,

Outlines minimum standards for the operation of a day care center for children with disabilities in Romania.