Analysis of the situation in the child residential institutions in the Kyrgyzstan. May 2012 Research commissioned by UNICEF in the Kyrgyz Republic

1. Ministry of Social Development
Ministry of Education and Science
Moya Semya Public Foundation
With the support of UNICEF

2.  To conduct comprehensive
quantitative and qualitative analysis of
residential institutions in the Kyrgyz
Republic and those in their care

3.  Clarification of the number of state and non-state children’s institutions in the
country and determination of their type of ownership.
 Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the make-up of the residents of children’s
residential institutions, disaggregated by type of ownership and type of social
service provided
 Assessment of the condition and quality of care in children’s residential
institutions in the following areas: social provision; hygiene and sanitation; and
facilities and equipment.
 Creation of lists of institutions that are ready for short-term, medium-term or
long-term transformation, and development of concrete recommendations for
each institution.
 Analysis of the set of documents held on each child, and the procedure for placing
children in the institution.
 Analysis of the services provided in children’s residential institutions.
 Track the patterns of movement of residents of residential institutions by region
and by type of institution.
 Revealing the barriers to the de-institutionalisation process.

4.  Residential children’s institutions and
the services they provide
 Regular and other staff of children’s
residential institutions
 Children in the care of children’s
residential institutions

5.  Desk review: open source materials, and
reports by state bodies, international
organisations and NGOs.
 Participant observation
 Survey of children in institutional care
 Surveys of staff members of social
institutions providing residential care

6. Questionnaires for staff of residential
institutions
 Ministry of Education, Ministry of Social
Development and Ministry of Health: 100
people.
 District and local budgets – 95 people.
 Private children’s residential institutions –
62 people.
Total: 257 people.

7. The research was conducted in 86
residential institutions:
-71 children’s orphanages
-15 orphanages for children with disabilities
An additional 25 state institutions funded from
local budget and 6 private institutions were
not included in the research.

8. Type of ownership and source of
financing
Institutions Number of children
Number % Number %
National budget
Ministry of Education and Science 24 20.5% 3731 34.2%
Ministry of Health 3 2.6% 200 1.8%
Ministry of Social Development 3 2.6% 539 5%
Ministry of Internal Affairs 2 1.7% 24 0.2%
Local government budgets
Boarding schools 32 27.4% 4400 40.3%
Temporary shelters 20 17% 536 5%
Private
Children’s homes, shelters, boarding
houses, religious boarding houses
and so on 33 28.2% 1478 13.5%
Total: 117 100.0% 10908 100.0%

12. Oblast Bishkek Chuy Naryn Talas Issyk Batken Osh Jalal- Total
Kul abad
Number of 14 27 2 1 10 3 6 8 71
institutions
Number of 1132 1799 159 337 351 475 863 562 5678
children in
institutional
care

13. Boys
3 267
2 411
Girls

20. 3000
2534
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
262
0
Without instructions from district Without birth certificate
administration / Mayor's Office

22.  Yavna Reception  Bala Umutu Centre to
(Alternative) Family Support Families and
Children’s Charitable Children, the Single and the
Foundation, Chuy Oblast; Elderly, Kara Suu;
 Kara Balta Children’s  Bazarkorgon Sanatorium-
Home, former Yraiym, Chuy Type Children’s
Oblast (private institution); Rehabilitation
 Umut Children’s Fostering- Centre, Jalalabad Province
Adaptation Centre, Chuy (healthcare system, funded
Oblast; through the local budget);
 Jalalabad Children’s
 Meerim-mentor Family- Psychoneurological
type Children’s Home, Chuy Boarding School
Oblast
Infrastructure in best Infrastructure in worst
condition condition

23. Case management services (ensuring a
family environment, restoring
documents, work with parents and so
on) are provided in 17 state
institutions and 10 private ones.

31. Institutions Children
Number % Number %
For children with learning
difficulties 8 53% 957 39%
For children with delayed
psychological development 1 7% 160 6%
For children with speech
defects 1 7% 275 11%
For children with visual
impairments 2 13% 310 13%
For children with hearing
impairments 3 20% 775 31%
Total 15 100% 2477 100%

37.  All 15 studied specialised children’s
residential institutions support
development of the working and creative
skills and abilities of their children;
 The institutions organise clubs for
handicrafts, sewing, music, dancing, drawin
g, footwear making and sports;
 In 12 institutions, children study computer
literacy

38.  Osh Specialised  Orto Suu Boarding
Boarding School for School
Blind and Visually
Impaired Children
Best institution for Worst institution for
infrastructure infrastructure

40.  The main reasons for children being admitted to residential care are difficult
financial conditions and the death of a parent;
 Almost all institutions are geared towards upkeep rather than rehabilitation or
social adaptation;
 At the local level institutions have a trend to accumulate up to 400 children.
The research showed that in local-level institutions children are admitted
usually based on applications, without the participation of FCSDs and
CCAs, and by referral from various structures;
 3,286 children who go home at weekends and in the holidays could
potentially be reintegrated into their family environments;
 Case management services are only provided in 29 institutions, and even here
they are narrow and do not fully meet the children’s needs for a family
environment;
 Growth has been noted in the number of private residential institutions: they
admit children under their own criteria, often groundlessly and artificially
depriving children of their family environments; they have no links with the
state, and there is no supervision of the children’s fate from the state; and
they do not have standardised norms and standards (on nutrition, welfare;
education, health and development).

41.  Introduce a moratorium on the opening of both new residential state institutions with
large capacity, and private orphanage-type children’s institutions;
 For the existing private institutions, create a monitoring and supervision system for the
activities in the best interests of the child
 Create new and/or restructure existing state services so that they are better oriented
towards providing a family environment for children without parental supervision. For
example, introduce a system of foster families, and create daycare departments at
institutions, family and child support centres, as well as other forms of alternative
adaptation services for children
 Recommend that FCSDs and territorial social protection departments ensure access to
services to families and children living in difficult circumstances in their own areas, with
the aim of ensuring the child remains in familiar surroundings, preventing further
psychological trauma and preserving child-parent relationships;
 Expand child protection services in every district for the psychosocial rehabilitation of
children in residential care, including additional educational services to meet their
interests;
 Introduce multiple sustainable models to prevent children being deprived of parental
care;
 Develop the professional skills essential for care and rehabilitation of children in
institutional care;
 Resolve the issue of taking educational services out of the institutions, in the best
interests of the integration and adaptation of children in institutional care into society
 Resolve the issue of receiving a quality education at the child’s place of residence, as one
of the reasons for children ending up in institutions is lack of access to education.

42. Thank you for
your attention
Moya Semya Public Foundation
2012