PL EN
REVIEW PAPER
On the concept of deinstitutionalisation of care and the measures undertaken. Possibilities and limits.
 
More details
Hide details
1
Wydział Nauk o Zdrowiu Zakład Ekonomiki Zdrowia i ZabezpiecZenia Społecznego, Instytut Zdrowia Publicznego Uniwersytet Jagielloński - Collegium Medicum, Polska
 
2
Pion Polityki Społecznej, Instytut Pracy i Spraw Socjalnych - IPiSS, Polska
 
 
Submission date: 2022-10-19
 
 
Acceptance date: 2022-11-22
 
 
Online publication date: 2023-01-10
 
 
Publication date: 2023-01-10
 
 
Corresponding author
Stanisława Golinowska   

Wydział Nauk o Zdrowiu Zakład Ekonomiki Zdrowia i ZabezpiecZenia Społecznego, Instytut Zdrowia Publicznego Uniwersytet Jagielloński - Collegium Medicum, ul. Skawińska 8, 31-066 Kraków, Krakow, Polska
 
 
Problemy Polityki Społecznej 2022;58(3):215-237
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The article is a voice in the debate regarding the effect of deinstitutionalisation on of the lives of dependent people who require care: children without parental care (foster children and those deprived of their parents’ care), people with disabilities and people experiencing mental health crises, and the elderly needing long-term care. The article is both illustrative and review-based. It uses historical knowledge and the results of comparative studies, as well as the knowledge of the practice of the functioning of care institutions for many categories of dependence not only in Poland but also in other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. It draws attention to the limitations of the deinstitutionalisation process and the necessary preparation of local authorities and local communities to create conditions for taking dependent people from large institutions of collective living to smaller ones, open to the support of local social communities. It draws attention to the fact that deinstitutionalisation policy is in fact a long-term process of re-institutionalisation, which may be socially beneficial under defined conditions, but requires investment outlays for transformations, renovations and, to some extent, for new investment of social infrastructure.
 
REFERENCES (37)
1.
Abramowska-Kmon A., Bakalarczyk R., Kotowska I., E., Łątkowski W., Łuczak P., Zofia Szweda-Lewandowska Z., Wóycicka I. (2022). W stronę sprawiedliwej troski. Opieka nad osobami starszymi w Polsce, Warszawa: Fundacja im, Stefana Batorego.
 
2.
Andrzejewski M. (2007). Domy na piasku, Poznań: Media Rodzina.
 
3.
Andrzejewski M. (2020). Deinstytucjonalizacja w rozwiązywaniu problemów społecznych w środowisku lokalnym.
 
4.
Berens A.E., Nelson Ch.A.(2015). The science of early adversity: is there a role for large institutions in the care of vulnerable children? The Lancet, open access D-14-00649.
 
5.
Davis L., Fulginiti A., Kriegel L., Brekke J.S. (2012). Deinstitutionalization? Where have all the people gone? Current Psychiatry Reports 14(3)/2012:259-269.
 
6.
Eurochild (2010). Call for Action on Quality of Alternative Care for Children Deprived of Parental Care,.
 
7.
Eurochild (2014). Deinstitutionalisation and quality alternative care for children in Europe.
 
8.
Lessons learned and the way forward. Working paper. www.eurochild.org.
 
9.
Eurofound (2022). COVID-19 and older people: Impact on their lives, support and care, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
 
10.
European Commission (2010). European Disability Strategy 2010-2020: A Renewed Commitment to a Barrier-Free Europe, Brussels: COM(2010) 636.
 
11.
European Commission (2013). Recommendation: Investing in Children: Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage. Brussels: 112/EU/2013.
 
12.
European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care (2014). Toolkit on the Use of European Union Funds for the Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care . www.deinstytutionalisationguide.eu.
 
13.
Goffman E. (2011). Instytucje totalne. O pacjentach szpitali psychiatrycznych i mieszkańcach innych instytucji totalnych. Sopot: GW Psychologiczne.
 
14.
Grewiński M., Lizut J. (red.) (2021). Deinstytucjonalizacja w polityce społecznej – szanse i zagrożenia. Radom: Instytut Naukowo-Wydawniczy „Spatium”.
 
15.
Instytut Psychiatrii i Neurologii (2020). Standard Organizacyjny Opieki Zdrowotnej w Centrum Zdrowia Psychicznego – Założenia Projektu, Warszawa: Biuro ds. Pilotażu Narodowego Programu Ochrony Zdrowia Psychicznego.
 
16.
Jasieńska G., Nenko I., Ziomkiewicz-Wichary A., Klimek M. (2022). Warunki rozwojowe a zdrowie reprodukcyjne i płodność, w: S. Golinowska (red.). Zdrowie publiczne. Wymiar społeczny i ekologiczny. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe SCHOLAR.
 
17.
Jones H. (2019). Deinstitutionalization for Children with Disabilities: Technical Guidance for Unicef’s Engagement in National Reform Efforts, Geneva: UNICEF Europe and Central Asia Regional Office.
 
18.
Knapp M., Cyhlarova E., Comas-Herrera A., Lorenz-Dant K. (2021). Crystallising the Case for Deinstitutionalisation: COVID-19 and the Experiences of Persons with Disabilities, London: Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science.
 
19.
Kolankiewicz M. (2022). Placówki opiekuńczo-wychowawcze. Historia i współczesność. Warszawa: Difin.
 
20.
May P., Lombard Vance R., Murphy E., O'Donovan M.A, Webb N., Sheaf G., McCallion P., Stancliffe R., Normand C., Smith V., McCarron M. (2019). Effect of deinstitutionalisation for adults with intellectual disabilities on costs: a systematic review. BMJ Open access 9(9): e025736.
 
21.
NIK (2017). Informacja o wynikach kontroli realizacji zadań Narodowego Programu Ochrony Zdrowia Psychicznego, Warszawa: KZD.430.006.2016.
 
22.
OECD (2021). Health at a Glance, Paris: OECD Publishing.
 
23.
O’Halloran K. (2009). The Politics of Adoption: International Perspectives on Law, Policy and Practice. 2d ed. New York: Springer.
 
24.
Posłuszny Ł. (2017). Instytucje totalne dzisiaj: Stan badań, krytyka, rekonfiguracje, w: Studia Socjologiczne 2017, 4 (227): 121-145.
 
25.
Putnam R.D. (2000). Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
 
26.
Racław M. (2017). Zinstrumentalizowane rodzicielstwo. Rodziny zastępcze – między usługą a odruchem serca. Perspektywa socjologiczna. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne Akapit.
 
27.
Roguska A. (2016). Foster family welfare in Poland. New forms of open inclusive care in educational aspect, Zinātniskie Raksti.
 
28.
Shen G.C., Snowden L. R. (2014). Institutionalization of deinstitutionalization: a cross-national analysis of mental health system reform, w: International Journal of Mental Health Systems, Volume 8, No 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4....
 
29.
Šiška J., Beadle-Brown J. (2020). Report on the transition from institutional care to community-based services in 27 EU member states. Final report. Research report for the European Expert Group on Transition from Institutional to Community-based Care.
 
30.
Steinhauer P. D., Santa-Barbara J., & Skinner H. (1984). The process model of family functioning. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29(2): 77–88.
 
31.
Sweet D., Byng R., Webber M., Enki D.G., Porter I., Larsen J., Huxley P., Pinfold V. (2018). Personal well-being networks, social capital and severe mental illness: exploratory study, w: The British Journal of Psychiatry 212/2018: 308–317.
 
32.
UN (2009). UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children,.
 
33.
UNICEF (2009). Progress for children: a report card on child protection. Geneva: United Nations Children’s Fund.
 
34.
UNICEF (2010). At Home or in a Home? Formal Care and Adoption of Children in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
 
35.
WHO (2018). Policies and practices for mental health in Europe - meeting the challenges. Copenhagen: Regional Office for Europe.
 
36.
Wroniszewska M. (2021). Tu jest teraz twój dom. Adopcja w Polsce. Wołowiec: Wydawnictwo Czarne.
 
37.
Yohanna D. (2013). Deinstitutionalization of People with Mental Illness: Causes and Consequences.
 
ISSN:1640-1808
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top