Reforming Ukraine’s Soviet-era child welfare system


Ukraine is looking to reform its current system of guardianship as well as its education system for disadvantaged and orphaned children. The reform entails introducing students to inclusive classes in ordinary schools as early as 2019.

There are more than 50,000 children with special needs in Ukraine, according to official statistics. Many of them have been isolated from mainstream education. But these statistics have not gone unnoticed. The head of a charity foundation looking to fix the situation Marina Poroshenko has promised to set up specialized inclusive classes in every school.

Maryna Poroshenko, Head of the Poroshenko foundation, told about Ukraine’s latest steps  in providing inclusive education:

“We started a pilot project to develop an inclusive educational environment in Ukraine a year ago. We started from the Zaporizhzhya Oblast last year.  But even today three regions have joined us: Dnipropetrovsk, Zhytomyr and Khmelnytsky. Our goal is to introduce inclusive education in all regions of Ukraine without exception by 2019.”

Meanwhile, human rights organizations have uncovered that orphanages from the Soviet-era had a disastrous effect on children being housed and educated there. Half of the children brought up in the facilities committed some sort of crime, and 25 percent of them ended up homeless. The most effective solution is to bring up children in the foster care is through a guardianship program.  

Pavlo Rosenko, Vice Prime Minister of Ukraine, told that Ukraine is introducing funding of foster care of children asides these state orphanages:

“This year the state budget provides funding for one hundred and fifty-four families of foster care for disadvantaged children. For sure, it’s not enough, because there are one hundred thousand children in the orphanages. But it is a very important beginning and it is a small victory.”

In Moldova, the system of orphanages started its transition in 2006.  There are currently only 10 percent of children who live in orphanages. Most of children live with adoptive families. The strategy of reforming the care and education system for disadvantaged children will appear in Ukraine in the nearest future.  


Dear readers! Since you’ ve made it to this point, we have a favor to ask. Russia’s hybrid war against Ukraine is ongoing, but major news agencies have gone away, which is why it's extra important to provide news about Ukraine in English. We are a small independent journalist team on a shoestring budget, have no political or state affiliation, and depend on our readers to keep going (using ťhe chance - a big thank you to our generous supporters, we couldn't make it without you). We are now $5,000 short of our financial goal and need your support to continue working. If you like what you see, please help keep us online with a donation!

Tags: , , ,


  1. Avatar Alex George says:

    This is a little-noticed effect of the Soviet system, but it was pernicious. Many orphans never got a decent chance due to their terrible and abusive upbringing.

    I hope that psychologists and human development experts do even more detailed studies of the Soviet orphanage system and the damage it did to society throughout the SU.

    Great to see that Ukraine is moving to fix the problem.

  2. Avatar Murf says:

    Another step away from Ukraine’s Soviet past.

    1. Avatar Andrew Chmile says:

      What a surprise! 🙂

      It looks like Russia hired internet trolls to pose as pro-Trump Americans

      1. Avatar Murf says:

        LMAO don’t you just love it when the press brakes some shocking story that we knew about for most of a year?
        I would have to say to them. “Well no sh*t Sherlock!”
        The funny thing is that their bragging about it helped bring their meddling to light and have thoroughly discredited Trumps reproachent. Right now he is as politically toxic as Polonium
        Vlad looses again!

        1. Avatar Andrew Chmile says:

          Yeah …. the monhols DID indeed have to LOUDLY BOAST & “TRUMP” THEIR CHESTS NO LESS !!! 🙂

          “Trump nash!!!”

          Stupid Ruski thrash!

          “Vlad looses again!”

          Not quite!

          He is talking about cutting military aid to Ukraine by HALF!
          He wouldn’t even meet with Poroshenko when he was in NY.
          Clinton BULL D Y K E did!

          The Clinton D Y K E supported Ukraine.
          Putin FEARED that nasty D Y K E …

          Bi-sex PUTIN **BOUGHT** TRUMP!!!

        2. Avatar Andrew Chmile says:

          BTW —

          Oksana Hawryluk

          5 hrs · Daily Kos ·

          administration officials were so concerned about what would happen to
          key classified documents related to the Russia probe once President
          Trump took office that they created a list of document serial numbers to
          give to senior members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, a former
          Obama official told NBC News.

          1. Avatar Turtler says:


            And we all freaking know how loud and fervent Obama talked about Putin’s dissection of Georgia after he took office, or the fact that the Kremlin’s puppets launched major attacks on Debaltseve AFTER the ceasefire was supposed to take place?

            “He is talking about cutting military aid to Ukraine by HALF!
            He wouldn’t even meet with Poroshenko when he was in NY.
            Clinton BULL D Y K E did!”

            Indeed, and those things are repugnant and an indication of why Trump is much too pro-Putin for my likes.
            “The Clinton D Y K E supported Ukraine.”

            Like a noose supports its’ “victim.” Clinton was Obama’s state department lieutenant and like him she avoided confrontation with Putin and intentionally played down Putin’s aggressions against pro-Western nations. Which is part of what emboldened him to go after Ukraine.

            Then they played up the terminally rotten Minsk agreements for reasons I cannot begin to fathom (though unfortunately that is a sin all too common across the politcal aisles.).

            “Putin FEARED that nasty D Y K E …”

            if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

            Putin isn’t nearly as genius as he wants people to think, and they believe he’s a chessmaster when he’s really a thug. But he’s a thug with KGB Archival training, and if you think he ever feared someone so corrupt and incompetent they put classified information on a server less secure than my gaming one, you don’t know the Kremlin very well.

            “Bi-sex PUTIN **BOUGHT** TRUMP!!!”

            Ok. How, pray tell?

            “5 hrs · Daily Kos ·”

            Typical spin by the Kossacks and NBC.

            And no, this was not because they were so concerned about key classified documents related to the Russia Probe. It is not anything close to standard operation procedure when investigating someone due to the fear of criminal wrongdoing. Starting with the fact that if you seriously believed someone- possibly the new President- was in the pocket of the Kremlin, you would NOT write all the data you thought was relevant down in one convenient list that the possible Kremlin stooge could (using the fact that as POTUS they are so high up they don’t have a security clearance because Nothing Can Be Kept From Them Legally) ask that it be turned over.

            You’re not supposed to surveil without a warrant. You’re not supposed to unmask the telling characteristics of people caught up with those you have surveillance on without a warrant. And you’re not supposed to take this to the Senate Intelligence Committee if your claims are so ssincere, you’re supposed to check with the FBI.

            You know, the guys who are in charge of domestic counter-espionage??

            At minimum this was improper to the point where some kind of legal reckoning is due. At worst it was blatant corruption by a sitting POTUS against a political rival.

          2. Avatar Andrew Chmile says:

            Rather “I have a bridge to sell” YOU!

            Esp. considering how STUPIDLY over 2 month or so you claimed that Stepan Bandera proclaimed the Ukrainian state in __**KHARKIV**__ :))

            WoW indeed! 🙂 — Even time & geography wise (not to even mention *HISTORICALLY* — that was asinine!

            Anyway ….. I wrote earlier:
            “Putin FEARED that nasty D Y K E …”

            and you later to my above:
            “if you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.”

            Some of your other. far earlier — rather interesting (i.e. equally STUPID) claims regarding polak colonization & treatment of Ukrainians in Post-WW1 polak occupied Western Ukraine, you have made as well….

            Just KEEP TO YOUR LEVEL! — Just stick to your BS “role playing & gaming” BS. Ignore the redundancy!

            However …. regarding some of the above in your latest missive:

            There WAS a REASON, Putin STRONGLY preferred Trump over Clinton & expended resources to do WTF he could.

            The below has been confirmed on most points & been expanded upon.

            Like I said: KEEP TO YOUR LEVEL!


            The Muscovian Candidate?

            Anwen Crawford


            There are many follow-ups on Steele’s work.
            Steele went into hiding.
            U.S. Senate wants him to testify…. lot’s & lots of follow-ups & confirmations.
            LIKE I JUST TOLD YOU.


            Analysis is NOT your strong suit… go play your “gaming” thing…. More exciting than reading & thinking for you, eh “Turtler”?

          3. Avatar Turtler says:

            “Rather “I have a bridge to sell” YOU!”

            Thanks, but I’m not on the market for a bridge. My financial situation coupled with other business commitments mean I would not be able to monetize it, and so it would be a money sink for me.

            “Esp. considering how STUPIDLY over 2 month or so you claimed that
            Stepan Bandera proclaimed the Ukrainian state in __**KHARKIV**__ :))”

            Prove it. Quote me, like I quote you.

            And in particular, show that it did Anything to refute my larger points in the given post. Because making an occasional boo boo about geography in a post where the main thrust of the argument can be forgiven.

            And yes, Bandera did declare A Ukrainian state (or at least government), albeit in Lviv, not Kharkhiv.

            It was not The Ukrainian state, because the Ukrainian nation well predated him and several previous declarations were already made to that effect (the most recent by the Hetmanate that inaugurated Ukrainian independence during the Russian Civil war era, but we can go back centuries). And contrary to what the average Kremlin scumbag may say, the Ukrainian Republic today does not trace its’ lineage back through Bandera (though it does recognize the contributions of several members of the OUN and UPTA).

            “WoW indeed! 🙂 — Even time & geography wise (not to even mention *HISTORICALLY* — that was asinine!”

            At most- and I certainly am not going to believe you until you post a direct quote FROM ME showing where I screwed up with Kharkhiv- it was in terms of geography.

            The idea that it is in any way complicated or controversial that Bandera issued A Ukrainian declaration of independence (though not THE relevant one) in the early days of Barbarossa does not fly.

            To use the lowest common denominator of research:


            Note the freaking date at the top.

            “Some of your other. far earlier — rather interesting (i.e. equally
            STUPID) claims regarding polak colonization & treatment of Ukrainians in Post-WW1 polak occupied Western Ukraine, you have made as well….”

            You seriously want to trade invective with someone who has researched and wargamed the various armies and governments of the period for years, chowderhead?

            Ok then. why the heck aren’t you listing those claims and stating why they are stupid?

            Because so far you’re not.

            “Just KEEP TO YOUR LEVEL! — ”

            I would, but I occasionally like descending to your level to make an easy debate.

            For the same reason a grandmaster at chess might occasionally amuse themselves by teaching (or beating) less competent players.

            “Just stick to your BS “role playing & gaming” BS. Ignore the redundancy!”

            It’s not a redundancy if you know that not all roleplaying is gaming, and vice versa. But then throwing invective and making broad, ignorant statements on subjects you’re not particularly knowledgeable about seems to be your style.

            “There WAS a REASON, Putin STRONGLY preferred Trump over Clinton & expended resources to do WTF he could.”

            Citation needed. what proof do you have that Putin strongly preferred Trump over Clinton?

            Because the FBI and (now former) President Obama- with the full backing of the US Intelligence apparatus- have investigated the Trump/Putin connection for months. There was nothing decisive or proven. In fact, there is still no independent proof that the infamous hacking of the DNC servers was done by Putin goons (only the statement of an independent contracting company that was made while the FBI was unable to have access to the serves to cross check it).

            “The below has been confirmed on most points & been expanded upon.”

            Ok then, why the heck aren’t you expanding on it or showing how it is confirmed?

            Probably because you can’t.

            Now to respond and summarize to your links:

            The first doesn’t lead to a specific article, and I am not going to do your own research and citations for you.

            As for the second, any moron who could print this lovely gem…

            “Nor is it illegitimate because arguably he has the foulest attitudes or the vilest character of any president in US history.”

            (Because apparently Andrew Jackson and Franklin Pierce don’t count, in spite of the fact that they were both slavers with authoritarian streaks, and the latter enabled a VIOLENT INTERNAL WAR in Kansas just to try and get another slave states. Which raises the question of “if someone is this historically ignorant and yet make such a broad statement, why should I trust them to get the rest right?”)

            “There is already overwhelming evidence-”

            So overwhelming that there has not yet been a Single piece of direct evidence tying the Kremlin to supporting Trump’s campaign or more importantly sabotaging the Dems.

            “There were several methods deployed, but by far the most significant was Russian intelligence hacking into the emails of the US Democratic Party.”


            A: This ignores several simultaneous hacking offensives against the RNC and Republican leaders, which were generally defeated because the RNC had better cybersecurity than the cripeshow the DNC apparently had.



            B: The FBI and other government investigative authorities (which SHOULD Have precedence in a case of foreign espionage) were not allowed to look at the infected severs and render their own judgement. They had to go off of…

            C: A single, private security company that was allowed access, made its’ report, and demanded everybody else accept it as a substitute for a thorough review.

            In short, the “overwhelming proof” amounts to a single company saying “Trust Us, it’s Putin.”


            If you think this is overwhelming, you don’t know the definition of the word.

            Now if these were the only screwups in the article, it would still render the author an idiot whose word is generally untrustworthy. Oh but it’s not.

            In particular is this:

            “The first was probably directed by the Russian domestic intelligence service, the FSB.”

            I realize this may be a novel concept to leftist demogauges pushing a story without doing the research, but the FSB is not *just* a domestic intelligence service. A domestic intelligence service has its’ purview primarily in the country it serves.

            An example is the FBI.

            The FSB is not such an organization. It is in fact the Russian government’s primary non-military intelligence agency, dealing not only with domestic intelligence work, but also FOREIGN intelligence work.

            And the Genius Madame Crawford should have realized this because she is alleging they were involved in an effort to disrupt *American* elections.

            Do I have to explain to you morons how the United States is not “domestic” for Russia?

            But noooo. Apparently this simplest of fact flew over the heads of Crawford and whatever editors looked over this codswallop.

            Now I’m going to skip down to the meat of the matter in this paragraph.

            “Two private firms that had been employed to investigate the hacking of the Democratic Party’s emails-”

            Were incompetent boobs whose findings were rightfully savaged by other security experts across the politcal spectrum and on the market.

            See: the article by Ars Technica (by NO means a bastion of right wing or republican thought) savaging it.


            See also this:


            And I could go on. Including this fairly in depth analysis from both myself and more importantly Arminius, who at least claims some technical knowledge and intelligence experience. And more importantly links a great deal to those who indisputably do have them.


            In short, the allegations that the FSB attacked the DNC servers hang on the incredibly thin reeds of a couple companies’ testimony. Said testimonies were found to be incredibly shoddy and incompetent.

            Meaning that there is no meaningful evidence revealed so far that the FSB hacked the DNC, much less to support Trump. For all we know they did, but THE DNC AND THE COMPANIES THEY HIRED WERE SO DAMN INCOMPETENT THEY ENSURED WHATEVER EVIDENCE MIGHT HAVE EXISTED HAS NOT COME OUT.

            But the incompetence in this article does not stop there.

            “WikiLeaks, chosen most likely because of its fame or notoriety as an
            independent and politically non-aligned source of significant leaked
            material, which would help disguise Russia’s involvement.”

            Which would be a heck of a lot more convincing if the single most well known source from Wikileaks was the traitor Snowden, who lives as a pensioner of the Kremlin. Or the fact that Russian intel using Wikileaks as a clearinghouse for what it picks up is pretty damn well known.

            Not a very competent disguise, to say the least.

            “Between July and November 2016 WikiLeaks published some 58,000 emails Russian intelligence had obtained from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its chairperson, John Podesta.”

            Except Podesta wasn’t hacked or cracked, he was phished as a result of his own stupidity and that of the DNC’s IT man.

            “Following the election, evidence emerged that suggests at least the
            possibility of a more sinister connection between the Trump campaign and
            the Russia’s anti-Clinton operation. In September 2015, Republican
            opponents supporting Jeb Bush’s candidacy commissioned a report on
            Donald Trump from the US firm Fusion GPS.”

            Ah, this utter nonsense again?

            The simple fact of the matter is that the uringate dossier was- even if we assume it was true- worthless. Because it rested too much on an unknown and generally unreliable agent (Steele) relying on anonymous sources talking to other anonymous sources in a twisted game of telephone that makes it incredibly unlikely that anybody or anything could actually be verified.

            It is in fact worth noting the one claim from the Dossier that has been substantiated in nearly half a year- the identity of one Russian diplomat as a spy- still managed to MISSPELL the bastard Kalugin’s name.

            And that’s just the shoddy tradecraft and general lack of veracity or transparency behind the dossier (including the failure to actually get any of the “top sources in Russia” named or give a timeline for things like the bed fiasco).

            When you look at Steele’s resume and his company’s political biases, the value of it sinks even further.


            There’s a reason why this dossier was sat on for months, and why even Mother Freaking Jones didn’t touch it and condemned Buzzfeed for the shoddy ethics involved in it. Because even if it had been true it was of so incredibly low value as to be useless for honest journalism, but great for unsubstantiated libel.

            “There are many follow-ups on Steele’s work.”

            None of which got anywhere.

            At all.

            Kalugin being outed came from another source.

            “Steele went into hiding. ”

            Yeah, you wonder why?

            You and your fellow urinegate dossier truthers want us to believe that is because Putin send the assassins after him. which may well be true. But the fact that he was willing to come back to the London offices of the company employing him contradicts that.

            Another perfectly valid explanation is the fact that he didn’t want to be grilled under oath about it, in large part because it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

            (though I suppose both answers are possible, the dossier is unquestionably a piece of trash but I imagine Putin isn’t happy with a former SIS mug going around. Maybe because it hurts the local prostitute trade).

            “U.S. Senate wants him to testify…. lot’s & lots of follow-ups & confirmations.”

            And yet Steele has conveniently refused to do so. Wonder why?

            “LIKE I JUST TOLD YOU.”

            You didn’t say anything about Steele. You merely asserted that Trump was Putin’s man and that Putin was somehow afraid of someone whose staff fails basic web security.

            “Analysis is NOT your strong suit… ”

            It’s stronger than your analysis is, mate.

            “go play your “gaming” thing…. More exciting than reading & thinking for you, eh “Turtler”?”

            I am the one who provided twice as many links as you did, all of them going to separate articles on the matter.

            So who did more reading and analysis for this then?