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 581 - 590 of 665

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.

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.

John Parry-Williams,

A situation analysis of laws, policies, and structures relevant to child protection in Sri Lanka, and a set of recommendations for improving the alternative care system.

Christopher Bold, Mary Henderson, and Rachel Baggaley,

A guide for faith-based organizations working in developing countries on issues related to orphans and vulnerable children. Contains examples of successful community-based and family support care programs throughout the world that are run by faith-based groups. Discourages the use of institutional care and orphanages.

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

A brief 2-page document that highlights the importance of child participation, post care planning, guarding against abuse, and connecting residential institutions with the surrounding community.

UNICEF,

An assessment of alternative care responses for children without primary caregivers in tsunami-affected regions of Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, and Thailand. Includes good practices, recommendations, and detailed country reports.