No 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 import ant 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 internationallyour recom mend ations provide a template for further action and criteria against which progress can be assessed.

A recent systematic review of studies in the developing world has critically examined linkages from familial HIV/AIDS and associated factors such as poverty and child mental health to negative child educational outcomes. In line with several recommendations in the review, the current study modelled relationships between familial HIV/AIDS, poverty, child internalising problems, gender and four educational outcomes: non-enrolment at school, non-attendance, deficits in grade progression and concentration problems. Path analyses reveal no direct associations between familial HIV/AIDS and any of the educational outcomes. Instead, HIV/AIDS-orphanhood or caregiver HIV/AIDS-sickness impacted indirectly on educational outcomes via the poverty and internalising problems that they occasioned. This has implications for evidence-based policy inferences. For instance, by addressing such intervening variables generally, rather than by seeking to target families affected by HIV/AIDS, interventions could avoid exacerbating stigmatisation, while having a more direct and stronger impact on children's educational outcomes. This analytic approach also suggests that future research should seek to identify causal paths, and may include other intervening variables related to poverty (such as child housework and caring responsibilities) or to child mental health (such as stigma and abuse), that are linked to both familial HIV/AIDS and educational outcomes.