DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

PROCESS

Photo: Carolyn Drake

Anahit Bakhshyan, Member of Parliament

Meri Poghosyan, UNICEF Armenia
Regional Conference on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities
Moscow, September 27-29, 2011

605,000

605,000
Is the number of children living in residential institutions in
27 CEECIS countries.

Photo: www.thepromise.org.uk

605,000 CHILDREN IN CEECIS FACE THE RISK OF

Violence and abuse because of isolation and closed

structure of most institutions

Discrimination/labeling from wider society

Insufficient provision of basic needs because of

insufficient funds, corruption and lack of monitoring

Being institutionalized as adults as well

605 000 CHILDREN IN CEECIS HAVE HIGHER PROBABILITY OF

impaired early brain development
poor physical and emotional health
poor self-confidence
lack of empathy and understanding of others
aggression towards others, cruelty to animals
autistic tendencies, self harming
problems with relationships
conflict with the law in adolescence and young
adulthood

IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE FOR CHILDREN?

Reunification with the natural/extended family
Substitute family
Short, medium and long term foster care
Emergency foster care
Specialized foster care
Respite care
Community-based small group homes
Adoption
Inclusion into mainstream schools (for education
institutions)

DEFINING DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION

De-institutionalising and transforming childrens services

is a collection of activities: it is not just the removal of
children from institutions. Rather it is a systematic,
policy driven change which results in considerably less
reliance on residential care and an increase in services
aimed at keeping children within their families and
communities.
Mulheir et al (2007)

Less costly in the long run

Best interests of the child

CONSTRAINTS TO DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
Conceptual Level
Prevalence of medical vs. social model of disability
Unawareness about the harms of institutionalization
Lack of political will/vision/commitment
Stereotypes and prejudices
Policy Making Level
Lack of appropriate legislation
Lack of intersectoral/interministerial cooperation
Allocations needed to cover transition costs

CONSTRAINTS TO DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
Process Level
Financing mechanism
Sector to sector budget transfers
National level to community budget transfers

Management Capacity

Lack of capacity to manage de-institutionalization process

(resource reallocation, re-profiling of staff, etc.)

Insufficiently developed social services

Case management
Monitoring of child rights in alternative care

Mainstream system not fitting the needs of every child

CONSTRAINTS TO DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION
Stakeholder level
Special schools and institutions
Professional convictions
Fear of loss of financing (per capita)
Fear of loss of jobs

Mainstream Schools

Lack of teacher capacity and resources

Discriminatory attitudes from teachers and parents and
community in general

Families

Reluctance to raise their children in the families

Perceived fear of discrimination

FAILURE TO PLAN IS
PLANNING TO FAIL

FAILURE TO PLAN IS PLANNING TO FAIL

Strategic Plan Outline
Rationale for the choice of institution
Mission statement or statement of intent
Timescale
Projected costs
Available resources
Additional resources required
Partners
Methodology
Designated project management personnel
Strategies to address resistance

FAILURE TO PLAN IS PLANNING TO FAIL

Strategic Plan Outline- Continued

System for evaluating and monitoring the quality of both

process and outcomes for the children
Details of services to be developed (both prevention and
placement services)
Building plans for the new services
Plans for use of the building currently housing the institution
Plans for the location of services
Plans for the phased preparation and movement of children
Plans for redeployment/selection and training of personnel
Source: Mulheir et al (2007)

LEVELS OF INTERVENTION
Number level
System level
Paradigm/ mindset level

SYSTEM LEVEL PROBLEMS NEED

SYSTEM LEVEL SOLUTIONS

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION IN ARMENIA
Facts and Figures
Over 1700 children with special needs in inclusive
schools
2800 children in special schools
1050 children in orphanages
800 in night-care institutions
23 children in foster families

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION IN ARMENIA
Number Level Intervention (education)
Increased number of inclusive schools from 0 to 81 in 10
years
Decreased number of special schools from 40 to 23
(only 10 were mainstreamed)
Increased per-capita financing for SEN students
Increased number of trained teachers
Mindset/Paradigm Level Intervention
Introduction of Inclusive Pedagogy in Pedagogical
University
Awareness-raising, non-discrimination campaigns

DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION IN ARMENIA
System Level Intervention

Legally stipulated right of parent to opt for mainstream

school
De-I of orphanages officially declared as government priority
Creation of Integrated Social Services declared as government
priority; pilot to be launched with UNICEF Assistance
Inter-ministerial Commission on Integrated Social Services
and Working Group on De-I Master Plan (planned)
Amendments to the Law On Education
Creation of institute of Teacher Assistant in 1 region (pilot)

AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON GENERAL EDUCATION

Main Amendments
Elimination of special standards of education (unified
curriculum)
Transformation of 10 special schools into regional
Psycho-pedagogical centers (PPCs)
PPCs serve as resource centers
PPCs evaluate special needs
PPCs retain right to educate children with severe mental
retardation and multiple disability
Will the amendments help?

Discussion

REFERENCES AND RECOMMENDED READINGS

Garcia et al (2003) Children in Institutions: The
Beginning of the End? The Cases of Italy, Spain,
Argentina, Chile and Uruguay. Innocenti Insight, UNICEF
Innocenti Research Centre
Mulheir et al (2007). De-institutionalising and
Transforming Childrens Services: A Guide to Good
Practice.
UN (2010) Guidelines to Alternative Care of Children,
UN resolution 64/142
UNICEF Social Monitor (2004)
WHO (2010) Better health, better lives: children and
young people with intellectual disabilities and their
families.