The Perspectives of Family Foster Care in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia

doi: 10.53116/pgaflr.7366


Reforms of the child protection systems, provision of family- and community-based alternative care has been developed to a certain level in all countries in Central and Eastern Europe and has increased the role of care provided by foster families replacing institutions to ensure that the best interests principle is taken into consideration when children are separated from their families. The research describes the foster care system in the so-called Visegrád countries: the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, and the results based on at least 50 interviews in each country conducted by local experts on subjective well-being of foster parents, their perceptions about their roles and place in their respective countries and their needs.

The article includes the legal framework, recruitment, preparation and support to foster families, their subjective well-being and needs in the four countries, including the history of their child protection systems to better understand the current situation.

The outcomes show differences in approach to foster care, the perception on the roles, responsibilities and needs based on the different traditions, earlier and current policies and practices. Understanding the attitude changes related to the rights of children, those in vulnerable situations, and to their families of origin would be essential to further develop and improve the child welfare and protection systems, and listening to children on their perceptions and the realisation of their rights.


child protection foster care foster parents children’s rights V4 countries

How to Cite

Herczog, M. (2024). The Perspectives of Family Foster Care in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 9(1), 129–147.


Anghel, R., Herczog, M. & Dima, G. (2013). The challenge of reforming child protection in Eastern Europe: The cases of Hungary and Romania. Psychosocial Intervention, 22(3), 239–249. Online:

Browne, K. D., Hamilton-Giacritsis, C. E., Johnson, R. & Chou, S. (2005). Young children in institutional care in Europe. Early Childhood Matters, 105, 15–18.

Diósi, Á. (1993). Cigány hivatásos nevelőszülők [Roma professional foster parents]. Család, gyermek, ifjúság, 2(6), 30–39.

Eurochild (2018). Opening Doors for European Children: Hungary. Online:

Eurochild (2019). New opportunities for investing in children 2019: Eurochild report on the European semester. Online:

European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-Based Care (2012, November). Common European guidelines on the transition from institutional to community-based care. Online:

European Expert Group on the Transition from Institutional to Community-Based Care (2014, June). Toolkit on the use of European Union funds for the transition from institutional to community based care (Rev. ed.). Online:

Fundamental Rights Agency (2023). Mapping Child Protection Systems in the EU (27). Online:

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. (2020). Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 2: Policy and practice recommendations for global, national, and local actors. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 4(8), 606–633. Online:

Herczog, M. (1997). Hungary. In M. Colton & W. Margaret (Eds.), The World of Foster Care. An International Sourcebook on Foster Family Care Systems (pp. 107–121). Arena.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office (2024). Summary Tables (STADAT). Online:

Kaasbøll, J., Lassemo, E., Paulsen, V., Melby, L. & Osborg, S. O. (2019). Foster parents’ needs, perceptions and satisfaction with foster parent training: A systematic literature review. Children and Youth Services Review, 101, 33–41. Online:

Knuiman, S., Rijk, C. H., Hoksbergen, R. A. & van Baar, A. L. (2015). Children without parental care in Poland: Foster care, institutionalization and adoption. International Social Work, 58(1), 142–152. Online:

Kolankiewicz, M. (2006). Zapiski o instytucjonalnej opiece nad dziećmi [Remarks on the institutional care of children]. Dziecko krzywdzone: Teoria. Badania. Praktyka, 5(4), 6–35.

Łuczyński, A. (2007). Rodziny zastępcze – ich rola i zadania w systemie opieki całkowitej [Foster Families – Their Role and Tasks in the Care System]. In J. Kuźma (Ed.), Opieka i wychowanie dzieci sierocych w Polsce (pp. 67–97). Krakowskie Towarzystwo Edukacyjne.

Lumos (2018). Investing in Children. The case for diverting Czech government finances away from institutions towards families and communities. Online:

Moravkova, S. (2018). Identification of the benefits of care about children in professional families in the Slovak Republic. NORDSCI Conference on Social Sciences. Online:

Muhari, J. (2024, May 3). Annyi elhagyott baba vár nevelőszülőre, hogy már a csecsemőosztályt tehermentesítő otthon is megtelt a miskolci kórházban [There are so many abandoned children waiting for foster parents that even the infant home replacing the postnatal ward is full]. Népszava. Online:

National Assembly (2024, June 10). A gyermekek védelméről és a gyámügyi igazgatásról szóló 1997. évi XXXI. törvény módosítása [Draft Amendment of Act XXXI of 1997 on the protection of children and guardianship administration]. Online:

Neagoe, A., Neag, D. L. M. & Lucheș, D. (2019). Reasons to care: Personal motivation as a key factor in the practice of the professional foster carer in Romania. PLOS ONE, 14(9). Online:

OHCHR Expert Consultation on the Rights of the Child (2021). Online:

Ruszkowska, M. & Lovašová, S. (2023). The foster care system in Poland and Slovakia. A comparative analysis/study. Rozprawy Spoleczne, 17(1), 227–238.

Schmidt, V. & Bailey, J. D. (2014). Institutionalization of Children in the Czech Republic: A Case of Path Dependency. The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 41(1), 53–75. Online:

Stelmaszuk, Z. W. (2002). Residential Care in Poland: Past, Present and Future. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 5(3), 102–111.

SzocOkos (2023, April 12). Nevelőszülők [Foster parents]. Online:

The Budapest Beacon (2018, March 28). EMMI sued for taking away too many Roma children from their families due to poverty. The Budapest Beacon. Online:

The League of Human Rights (2017, March 31). Czech Ministers at Loggerheads over Infant Homes & Foster Care. Liberties. Online:

Tobis, D. (2000). Moving from residential institutions to community-based social services in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. World Bank.

Truhlárová, Z. & Levická, T. (2012). Facilities for children needing immediate assistance – controversial institutions intended for substitute childcare in the Czech Republic. Social Work in Ukraine: Theory and Practice, 2, 132–147.

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2021). Day of General Discussion, Children’s Rights and Alternative Care, Outcome Report. Online:

UN General Assembly (2020). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18 December 2019. Rights of the Child. Online:

UNICEF (2012). Moving forward: Implementing the guidelines for the alternative care of children. Online:

UNICEF (2013). Fifteen years of de-institutionalization reforms in Europe and Central Asia: Key results achieved for children and remaining challenges. Online:

UNICEF & Eurochild (2021). Better data for better child protection systems in Europe: Mapping how data on children in alternative care are collected, analysed and published across 28 European countries. DataCare Project Technical Report. Online:

Vecchiato, T., Maluccio, A. N. & Canali, C. (Eds.) (2002). Evaluation in Child and Family Services. Comparative Client and Program Perspectives. De Gruyter.

Whenan, R., Oxlad, M. & Lushington, K. (2009). Factors associated with foster carer well-being, satisfaction and intention to continue providing out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 752–760. Online:


Download data is not yet available.