Cited by 140Child Welfare and AdoptionPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareChild and Adolescent Health

Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 2: policy and practice recommendations for global, national, and local actors

Open access
Goldman, Philip S, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian J, Bradford, Beth, Christopoulos, Alex, Ken, Patricia Lim Ah, Cuthbert, Christopher, Duchinsky, Robbie, Fox, Nathan A +14 more·2020·The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health

Abstract

Worldwide, millions of children live in institutions, which runs counter to both the UN-recognised right of children to be raised in a family environment, and the findings of our accompanying systematic review of the physical, neurobiological, psychological, and mental health costs of institutionalisation and the benefits of deinstitutionalisation of child welfare systems. In this part of the Commission, international experts in reforming care for children identified evidence-based policy recommendations to promote family-based alternatives to institutionalisation. Family-based care refers to caregiving by extended family or foster, kafalah (the practice of guardianship of orphaned children in Islam), or adoptive family, preferably in close physical proximity to the biological family to facilitate the continued contact of children with important individuals in their life when this is in their best interest. 14 key recommendations are addressed to multinational agencies, national governments, local authorities, and institutions. These recommendations prioritise the role of families in the lives of children to prevent child separation and to strengthen families, to protect children without parental care by providing high-quality family-based alternatives, and to strengthen systems for the protection and care of separated children. Momentum for a shift from institutional to family-based care is growing internationally—our recommendations provide a template for further action and criteria against which progress can be assessed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2352-4642(20)30060-2

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The global community is unanimous in supporting the deinstitutionalization agenda.

    “The global community is unanimous in supporting this agenda (Geneva Working Group, 2013; Goldman et al., 2020; UN General Assembly, 2019; van IJzendoorn et al., 2020).”

    From Residential care as an alternative care option: A review of literature within a global context (2022) · cites this paper as Goldman et al., 2020

    The Summary says momentum for a shift from institutional to family-based care is growing internationally, and the Introduction calls on global actors to work jointly toward eliminating institutions. Neither passage establishes that the global community is unanimous in supporting deinstitutionalization; the paper's call for further coordination does not amount to a report of universal agreement. The supplied passages do not give page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Increases in orphanhood that are associated with COVID-19 occur against a backdrop of more than 140 million existing orphans in need of global health and social care prioritisation.

    “Increases in orphanhood that are associated with COVID-19 occur against a backdrop of more than 140 million existing orphans in need of global health and social care prioritisation.28”

    From Global minimum estimates of children affected by COVID-19-associated orphanhood and deaths of caregivers: a modelling study (2021) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) anticipate a substantial global impact of COVID-19 on children and families, and Section 1 recommends stronger care and protection systems for children at risk of institutionalisation. The paper does not establish that COVID-19 increases orphanhood or report more than 140 million existing orphans; its discussion of millions of children in institutions concerns a different population. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The study adjusted for possible clustering of deaths between parents using an estimate of secondary attack rates and age-specific infection-fatality ratios to provide unduplicated counts for children losing one or both parents.

    “We adjusted for possible clustering of deaths between parents using an estimate of secondary attack rates and age-specific infection–fatality ratios to provide unduplicated counts for children losing one parent (single orphan) or both parents (double orphan; appendix p 4).24”

    From Global minimum estimates of children affected by COVID-19-associated orphanhood and deaths of caregivers: a modelling study (2021) · cites this paper as [24]

    The passages from Section 3 and the References concern child welfare, institutional care, and monitoring, not estimates of parental deaths. Searches of our copy for secondary attack rates, age-specific infection-fatality ratios, and unduplicated single- and double-orphan counts found no passage addressing the claimed adjustment. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 76 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [19]The European Parliament and the Council of the EU Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 Official Journal of the European Union 2013 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN
  2. [20]UNICEF Deinstitutionalisation of children in Bulgaria: how far and where to? Independent review of progress and challenges https://bettercarenetwork.org/sites/default/files/attachments/Deinstitutionalization%20of%20Children%20in%20Bulgaria.pdf 2014
  3. [29]Meyer J Workshop explores movement away from institutional care of children. 2019. Global sisters report https://www.globalsistersreport.org/blog/gsr-today/ministry/workshop-explores-movement-away-institutional-care-children-56278
  4. [70]Christian Alliance for Orphans CAFO2012 workshops and coaching tables https://cafo.org/summit/workshops
  5. [120]Ibrahim RW Cast out and punished Mendes P Snow P Young people transitioning from out-of-home care: international research, policy and practice 2016 Palgrave Macmillan London 389 408

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goldman, P. S., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Bradford, B., Christopoulos, A., Ken, P. L. A., Cuthbert, C., Duchinsky, R., Fox, N. A., Grigoras, S., Gunnar, M. R., Ibrahim, R. W., Johnson, D., Kusumaningrum, S., Agastya, N. L. P. M., Mwangangi, F. M., Nelson, C. A., Ott, E. M., Reijman, S., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Zeanah, C. H., Zhang, Y., & Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S.
Affiliations
  • United Nations Children's Fund (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • German Jordanian University (JO)
  • University of Indonesia (ID)
  • Catholic Relief Services (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Tulane University (US)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Sonuga-Barke, Edmund J S
Venue
The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-08
Volume
4
Issue
8
Pages
606-633
ISSN
2352-4642 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3036972655
Cited by
140
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
Keywords
deinstitutionalization, family-based care, child welfare system, foster care, adoption, kafalah, child separation from family, child protection, best interests of the child, policy recommendations, child mental health, orphans
MeSH terms
Child, Child Advocacy, Child Health Services, Deinstitutionalization, Health Policy, Humans, Institutionalization, Global Health, Practice Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review