Transcript 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,

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 children’s 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 Children’s 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”.
