Deinstitutionalization of the child care system in Lithuania

The reform of the child care system in Lithuania started with the Ministry of Social Security and Labor approving the Strategic Guidelines for Deinstitutionalization in 2012, followed by the Transition from Institutional Care to Community-Based Services in 2014. The strategic aim of the reform was t...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International journal of child, youth & family studies IJCYFS youth & family studies IJCYFS, 2020-01, Vol.11 (4), p.121-131
Main Author: Pivoriene, Jolanta
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Child care
Children
Community-based programs
Data Analysis
Deinstitutionalization
Discourses
Guardians
Infrastructure
Political discourse
Reforms
Regulation
Residential care
Social security
Transformation
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The reform of the child care system in Lithuania started with the Ministry of Social Security and Labor approving the Strategic Guidelines for Deinstitutionalization in 2012, followed by the Transition from Institutional Care to Community-Based Services in 2014. The strategic aim of the reform was to create a system including a comprehensive range of services that would enable every child and their family or guardians to receive individual services as well as community assistance according to their needs. The process of transformation of institutional care was designed in two steps: creation of the necessary conditions for the transformation, which took place in 2014 to 2017, and development of infrastructure in the regions, planned for 2017 to 2020, but now extended to 2023. The goal of this article is to discuss the deinstitutionalization process by presenting legal regulations, information about the conceptualization and scope of the project, and evidence based on documents and statistical and secondary data analysis. I will also discuss possible contradictions between analytical and political discourses, and quantitative and qualitative evidence.
ISSN:1920-7298
1920-7298
DOI:10.18357/ijcyfs114202019941