DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION PROCESS

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

Photo: Carolyn Drake

Anahit Bakhshyan, Member of ParliamentMeri Poghosyan, UNICEF Armenia

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 careEmergency foster careSpecialized foster careRespite careCommunity-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 DEINSTITUTIONALIZATIONProcess 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 ARMENIANumber 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”.