children, by exploring the benefits of various types of community-based care, by reducing the use of institutions, by setting standards for public care and for monitoring of the Declaration, 2003). remaining institutions” (Stockholm The Stockholm Declaration therefore calls on governments to the system of “restructure public care in order to diminish the use of institutions, develop alternative care approaches and strengthen effective community-based preventive and protective social While services”. the Malmo Declaration contrasts institutional settings with new models of residential care, the Stockholm Declaration treats all residential care as institutional and contrasts this with family settings. Courtney, Tolev and Gilligan (2009) suggest that: of the Care Stockholm Declaration on Children and Residential “a casual reader might easily conclude that the nations of the world had declared as a goal a definitive end to a centuries-long period in which dependent children had lived in group settings away from family and that a clear road map existed to a future that would be free of residential and Gilligan, 2009, p. 191). care.” (Courtney, Dolev Now, there is much in the Stockholm Declaration to be commended and supported, including the emphasis on a rights-based approach to children in public care, the need to adopt standards for public care and proper monitoring arrangements, Indeed, we support development of effective family-based and community-based services for children and young people. However, we must agree with Anglin and Knorth when they counter that ‘for many young residential care is not a last resort, but rather a preferred and people… good positive choice when their developmental challenges indicate the need for and it’ (Anglin Knorth, 2004, p. 141). As we will see, these two Declarations reflect the ambiguities and tensions in the practice of residential child care across the developed and developing world. Residential Care in International Contexts International Trends in Residential Child Care
children, by exploring the benefits of various types of community-based care, by reducing the use of institutions, by setting standards for public care and for monitoring of the remaining institutions” (Stockholm Declaration, 2003). The Stockholm Declaration therefore calls on governments to “restructure the system of public care in order to diminish the use of institutions, develop alternative care approaches and strengthen effective community-based preventive and protective social services”. While the Malmo Declaration contrasts institutional settings with new models of residential care, the Stockholm Declaration treats all residential care as institutional and contrasts this with family settings. Courtney, Tolev and Gilligan (2009) suggest that: “a casual reader of the Stockholm Declaration on Children and Residential Care might easily conclude that the nations of the world had declared as a goal a definitive end to a centuries-long period in which dependent children had lived in group settings away from family and that a clear road map existed to a future that would be free of residential care.” (Courtney, Dolev and Gilligan, 2009, p. 191). Now, there is much in the Stockholm Declaration to be commended and supported, including the emphasis on a rights-based approach to children in public care, the need to adopt standards for public care and proper monitoring arrangements, Indeed, we support development of effective family-based and community-based services for children and young people. However, we must agree with Anglin and Knorth when they counter that ‘for many young people… good residential care is not a last resort, but rather a preferred and positive choice when their developmental challenges indicate the need for it’ (Anglin and Knorth, 2004, p. 141). As we will see, these two Declarations reflect the ambiguities and tensions in the practice of residential child care across the developed and developing world. Residential Care in International Contexts International Trends in Residential Child Care