1. D EINSTITUTIONALIZATION P ROCESS Regional Conference on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities Moscow, September 27-29, 2011 Photo: Carolyn Drake Anahit Bakhshyan, Member of Parliament Meri Poghosyan, UNICEF Armenia

2. 605,000

3. Is the number of children living in residential institutions in 27 CEECIS countries. Photo: www.thepromise.org.uk

4. 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

5. 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

6. I S 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)

7. D EFINING D EINSTITUTIONALIZATION 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

8. C ONSTRAINTS 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

9. C ONSTRAINTS 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

10. C ONSTRAINTS 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

11. FAILURE TO PLAN IS PLANNING TO FAIL

12. 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

13. F AILURE 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)

14. L EVELS OF I NTERVENTION Number level System level Paradigm/ mindset level SYSTEM LEVEL PROBLEMS NEED SYSTEM LEVEL SOLUTIONS

15. D EINSTITUTIONALIZATION IN A RMENIA 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

16. D EINSTITUTIONALIZATION IN A RMENIA 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

17. D EINSTITUTIONALIZATION IN A RMENIA 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)

18. A MENDMENTS 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?

19. Discussion

20. R EFERENCES 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”.