Child Care Institutions
Official Definition
Child care institutions (CCIs) are residential spaces meant to offer safety, care and support to children who need temporary protection or who come into contact with the law in India. These institutions operate under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. While they are formally designed to be nurturing environments with education, counselling and rehabilitation, their functioning varies across the country, and children’s experiences often differ from what the law promises.
CCI means Children’s Home, Open Shelter, Observation Home, Special Home, Place of Safety, Specialised Adoption Agency (SAA) and a Fit Facility recognised under this Act for providing care and protection to children, who are in need of such services” (Section 2 (21), JJ Act, 2015).
Purpose and role
At their core, CCIs exist because some children cannot immediately live at home whether due to neglect, abuse, difficult family circumstances, or because they are undergoing an inquiry before a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). Instead of being treated like adult offenders, the law insists that these children should be guided, protected and supported so that they can rebuild their lives with dignity.
The ideal CCI is therefore not a detention space but a transitional home, a place where children receive education, emotional support, healthcare, vocational training and a chance to reconnect with family and society.
Types of Child Care Institutions
All CCIs must be registered under the Juvenile Justice Act and comply with Rule 29 of the Model Rules, which outlines minimum infrastructure standards. Children are expected to be separated by sex and age, and all institutions must maintain minimum standards of care.
The JJ Act, 2015 provides for institutional care mechanism (in addition to non- institutional/family-based mechanism) for rehabilitation and reintegration of CCL (Children in Conflict with Law) and CNCP (Children in need of Care and Protection).
India recognizes three main types of CCIs for children in conflict with the law:
- Observation Homes: Under Section 2 (40), JJ Act, 2015, "`Observation Home´ means an institution established and maintained in every district or group of districts by a State Government, either by itself, or through a voluntary or non- governmental organisation, and is registered as such for the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of Section 47.”Short-term shelters where children stay while their cases are under inquiry. The focus is on safety and basic care.
- Special Homes: Under Section 2 (56), JJ Act, 2015, “`Special Home´ means an institution established by a State Government or by a voluntary or non-governmental organisation, registered under Section 48, for housing and providing rehabilitative services to children in conflict with law, who are found, through inquiry, to have committed an offence and are sent to such institution by an order of the Board.” Facilities designed for longer-term rehabilitation, offering counselling, education, vocational training, and guidance to reintegrate children into society.
- Places of Safety: Under Section 2 (46), JJ Act, 2015, “`Place of Safety´ means any place or institution, not being a police lock-up or jail, established separately or attached to an Observation Home or a Special Home, as the case may be, the person in-charge of which is willing to receive and take care of the children alleged or found to be in conflict with law, by an order of the Board or the Children’s Court, both during inquiry and ongoing rehabilitation after having been found guilty for a period and purpose as specified in the order.”Institutions for older children, typically 16–18 years old, charged with or found responsible for serious offences. Children who turn 18 during proceedings often remain here to avoid adult prisons.
Although separate facilities for boys and girls are recommended, some states operate mixed institutions due to resource constraints. In Delhi, all CCIs are required to maintain digital records of child profiles, medical checkups, attendance, progress under Individual Care Plans, nutrition logs, and grievance reports. Staff background checks and training records must also be documented and renewed periodically, particularly for personnel working directly with children.
Child Care Institutions for CNCP (Children in Need of Care and Protection)
1. Children’s Home: Under, Section 50, JJ Act; Rule 29–34, “Children’s Home” means an institution established by the State Government/NGO for providing long-term residential care, protection, education, treatment and rehabilitation to CNCP. Children declared in need of care by the CWC are placed here for safety, development, counselling, and restoration.
2. Open Shelter: Section 43, JJ Act; Rule 25–28, “Open Shelter” is a community-based short-term facility offering immediate refuge to vulnerable, runaway, missing, or street children. It provides food, clothing, counselling, and a safe space before the child is presented to the CWC or moved to a Children’s Home.
3. Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA): Under Section 65, JJ Act; Rule 21–24, “Specialized Adoption Agency” cares for orphaned, abandoned, and surrendered (OAS) children. It provides temporary care, prepares legal documents , and facilitates adoption through CARA (Central Adoption for Research and Authority). The focus is on permanent family-based rehabilitation.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, together with the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, forms the governing framework through which India delivers care, protection, and rehabilitation to children who come into conflict with the law. While the Act establishes the core principles—rehabilitation, best interests of the child, non-stigmatisation, and procedural fairness—it is the Rules that transform these principles into concrete institutional practices. Under the rules, states are mandated to establish a set of specialised institutions: Observation Homes for temporary reception during the pendency of inquiry, Special Homes for long-term rehabilitation after a child is found to have committed an offence, and Places of Safety for children aged 16–18 involved in heinous offences. The Rules reinforce these obligations by prescribing minimum standards of care in Rule 29, including requirements relating to infrastructure, staffing, safety, hygiene, education, counselling, and recreation.[1]
The actual functioning of Child Care Institutions is shaped in large part by Part 3, which deals with their management. This Rule outlines the basic procedures for admission, search, documentation, daily routine, discipline, grievance mechanisms, and the general conduct expected of staff. It ensures that institutions operate in a structured, predictable, and child-sensitive manner rather than resembling punitive spaces.
Complementing this, provisions on Individual Care Plans (Rule 7) ensure that each child’s rehabilitation needs are assessed and addressed through counselling, education, mental-health support, skill development, and preparation for reintegration. The Rules also provide for transitional support through aftercare services (Rule 69), recognising that children do not instantly become self-sufficient upon leaving institutional care. Rule 33 specifies the nutrition plan of each child that needs to be maintained, these include 4 diets per day along with provisions like special meals on holidays, festivals, celebrations.
Oversight bodies created under the Act—the Juvenile Justice Board (Section 8) and the Child Welfare Committee (Section 27)—must record clear reasons for sending a child to any institution and periodically review whether continued placement is necessary. This prevents unnecessary institutionalisation and embeds accountability within the system.
Most Indian states frame their Child Care Institution regulations by adopting the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 as the foundational standard. Yet, because state rules carry the same statutory authority, they may legitimately introduce state-specific alteration which are largely shaped by administrative priorities, resource conditions, and local operational frameworks. These amendments typically preserve the core rehabilitative philosophy, but can result in measurable deviations in critical areas such as whether roles like counsellors, legal-cum-probation officers, or medical officers are sanctioned as full-time posts or only as empanelled/part-time availability, enforcement of age- and offence-based segregation within homes, constitution, decision-making powers, and compliance responsibilities of the CCI Management Committee, prescribed timelines and formats for institutional inspections and field visits and aftercare planning and grievance redressal protocols.
Compulsory Registration of Institutions
The JJ Act allows institutional facilities for children to be set up by both government and non-government organisations (NGOs). However, as per law, all CCIs, whether they are for CNCP or for CCL, are required to be compulsorily registered under JJ Act, 2015 within six months of the Act having been enacted. This requirement for registration is irrespective of who is running such homes - government, voluntary organisation or NGO. Even those institutions that are not receiving government funds are required to register.
Getting a Registration is an Obligation and not a Right
State Government may refuse or withhold registration. In case institutions fail to meet the necessary standards as laid out in the law and elucidated in the rules, the State Government has the duty to cancel the registration. In case the registration of an institution is cancelled, the management of the institution will be passed on to the State Government till the registration is renewed or granted. This is to ensure that children in the institution are not displaced and are cared for properly till necessary remedial actions have been taken.
Penalty for Non-Registration of CCI (Section 42)
As per the JJ Act, those persons who are in charge of institutions and who fail to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 41 shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year or a fine of not less than one lakh rupees or both. As it is a continuing offence, delay of 30 days in moving an application for registration from the date of establishment or from the date when renewal of registration becomes due, will be considered as a separate offence. In effect, if an institution fails to move an application for registration for 90 days, it will be liable to three offences of non-registration.
Accordingly, to assess whether these modifications strengthen or dilute minimum standards of childcare and protection, a comparative review of Delhi’s Juvenile Justice Rules and other state adaptations becomes necessary, not to question adoption, but to identify contextual regulatory shifts that may impact children’s rights and rehabilitation outcomes.
In practice, however, implementation remains uneven across states. Resource constraints, shortages of trained personnel, and gaps in specialised facilities often limit the full expression of the law’s rehabilitative vision. Even so, the Rules remain significant because they articulate a humane, child-centred approach: they recognise that every child, regardless of the offence alleged or circumstance of entry into the system, deserves dignity, protection, and the opportunity to rebuild their life.
Functioning of various Child Care Institutions
The CCIs for CCL and CNCP shall function from separate premises as per the criteria elaborated. Be child-friendly and in no way shall they look like a jail or lock-up.Keep a copy of the Act and the rules framed by the State Government, for use by both the staff and children residing therein. Have a Management Committee for the management of the institution and monitoring the progress of every child in the home.Prepare an individual care plan for every child in institutional care with the ultimate aim of the child being rehabilitated and re-integrated based on their case history, circumstances and individual needs. Individual care plan shall be based on the guidelines in following sections. 2. Every institution shall have a Management Committee, to be set up in a manner as may be prescribed, to manage the institution and monitor the progress of every child. 3. The officer in-charge of every institution, housing children above six years of age, shall facilitate setting up of children’s committees for participating in such activities as may be prescribed, for the safety and well-being of children in the institution
What the law expects?
The Juvenile Justice Act and Model Rules imagine CCIs as child-friendly spaces. They require trained staff, including counsellors, educators, medical personnel and social workers, individual Care Plans (ICPs) that recognise each child’s needs and background, safe premises, clean living conditions and dignity in day-to-day treatment, regular inspections and monitoring by authorities and pathways for education, skills and eventual reintegration.
Role of Police as First Responders: The law mandates that every police station have a designated Child Welfare Police Officer and that each district maintain a Special Juvenile Police Unit trained to handle children in conflict with the law. Their role is to ensure child-friendly procedures, prevent unnecessary detention, and enable early diversion. However, national data shows inconsistent coverage: while some states such as Delhi and Mizoram have more CWPOs than police stations, others report gaps that weaken the initial protective response envisaged by the Act.
Role of Probation Officers in Rehabilitation: The law also expects Legal-cum-Probation Officers to prepare Social Investigation Reports, track each child’s progress, and support reintegration through regular follow-ups. These officers form the backbone of the individualised rehabilitation approach emphasised by the JJ Act. In practice, however, they are heavily overburdened. Ten states reported that 145 probation officers handled over 25,000 cases—an average of 175 cases per officer—with Delhi’s figure reaching 800. Such caseloads make it difficult to deliver the personalised attention the law expects.
Oversight & Monitoring Failures
The law envisions a tightly coordinated monitoring structure in which every CCI is subject to monthly Management Committee meetings, grievance registers, Children’s Committees, and routine inspections.
Mission Vatsalya guidelines require District Child Protection Units (DCPUs), Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs), Child Welfare Committees, and even State Commissions to maintain a seamless, upward flow of information. However, the IJR study shows that this monitoring system works only on paper. DCPO field visits were reported for barely 105 homes across 14 states, and only 26 institutions showed evidence of the required one visit per month. Many states had no complete records at all. The absence of systematic and reliable inspection data suggests that compliance with minimum standards of care is left to discretion rather than guaranteed by routine oversight.
Every CCI in Delhi is required to form a Children’s Committee and maintain a grievance register that is accessible to children at all times. Complaints must be recorded without punitive consequences, and the Management Committee must review grievances on a monthly basis, documenting actions taken in response. This ensures that children have a structured avenue to express concerns and that their voices are integrated into the oversight process. Apart from this, Inspections in Delhi CCIs must be systematically recorded in prescribed registers. The reasons for a child’s continued stay or transfer must be noted, and any discrepancies related to care, staffing, discipline, nutrition, or infrastructure must be documented along with proof of remedial steps taken. This ensures that inspections are not merely procedural, but that corrective actions are traceable and accountable rather than left to discretionary judgment.
Life inside CCIs
National data shows that India has 319 Observation Homes, 41 Special Homes, and 40 Places of Safety, accommodating 9,907 children in total. However, the distribution of these facilities is uneven, with 14 states lacking a Place of Safety entirely. This results in children often being placed far from their home districts, increasing their vulnerability, limiting family contact, and complicating their access to Juvenile Justice Boards. Moreover, mixed facilities were reported in several smaller states, raising concerns about inappropriate grouping of children across age and offence categories. While national guidelines suggest small home-like units (around 50 children, and 25 in hilly areas), many states do not publish real-time updates. Some CCIs are overcrowded; others are nearly empty but lack staff or services.[2]
Moreover, Delhi CCIs are required to conduct a health screening for each child within 24 hours of admission, followed by weekly medical check-ups recorded in medical registers. Children must have access to mental health support either through in-house counsellors or empanelled specialists. Additionally, CCIs must maintain a comprehensive emergency response protocol covering injury, abuse, illness, self-harm, or behavioural escalation. This protocol includes immediate reporting to the DCPO, JJB, CWC, and, where applicable, to parents or guardians.
The 'India Justice Report 2024–25: Juvenile Justice – Children in Conflict with the Law'[2] highlights that CCIs suffer from alarming shortages of essential staff. Nearly 80 per cent of institutions had no medical officer on call, even though the Rules mandate at least one physician. Several states like Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Mizoram, Nagaland, and Tripura reported zero medical officers in any Observation Home. Mental health support is even more scarce, just 71 counsellors were reported across 171 homes, leaving almost half of all CCIs without trained psychological support. These deficits directly undermine the rehabilitative mandate of the JJ system and contribute to neglect, untreated illness, and behavioural issues among children.
Services and support
In the best cases, CCIs provide regular schooling, skill-based training (such as tailoring, computer training, electrical work, handicrafts), sports, art and recreational opportunities, mental health support and guidance for reintegration with families or communities. However, children’s access to these services is inconsistent. Some states offer a diverse set of programmes; others report almost no structured activities. For many children, daily life can feel monotonous or restrictive, especially when staff shortages limit mentoring, emotional support or supervised recreation.
However, there is a serious Staffing gap in CCIs. Across 15 responding states, only 60% of CCIs reported having a person-in-charge in place, a statutory requirement. An alarming 80% of the institutions had no medical staff, and 45% operated without a counsellor. These chronic shortages directly undermine children’s access to health care, psychological support, and rehabilitation, revealing a deep mismatch between legal standards and ground realities.
Alternative Care
It is widely recognised that no institution, however well-run, can fully replace the nurturing environment a family provides to a child. Yet, for some children, institutional care becomes the only viable option. Therefore, improving the quality of institutional care, creating smaller community-based group homes, and simultaneously expanding family-based alternative care services becomes essential.
Alternative care encompasses a range of arrangements for children whose parents are unable to provide adequate care. Many such children live with extended family members under kinship care, while others are placed in adoption, foster care, or various forms of family- and community-based arrangements. Growing concern has emerged regarding children separated from parental care and the need for preventive, community-centred, and family-oriented alternatives.
The JJ Rules also provides for these provisions, under which alternative care options are looked out for these children.
Example- Bal Sangopan Scheme - Maharashtra
Under this programme, substitute family care is provided for a temporary period to children whose parents are not able to take care of their children due to several reasons including illness, death, separation or desertion of one parent, or any other crisis.Since every child needs and has the right to be cared for in a family, foster care is a programme whereby a home is provided for the child for a short or extended period. A grant of Rs. 425 per child per month is given by the government to the foster parent(s) through an NGO for meeting the basic expenses of the child. The implementing NGO is given a supporting grant of Rs. 75 per month per child to meet administrative expenses, including home visits.
Challenges
Field studies and district-level data highlight recurring concerns, lack of trained professionals: Many CCIs do not have counsellors, psychologists or even a full-time medical officer, missing data and transparency: It is often unclear how many children each facility can hold, what services are running, or whether staff posts are filled, distance from home, children may be placed hours away from families and local JJBs, weakening support networks, inadequate rehabilitation activities: Education and skill-building programmes are missing or irregular in many institutions.
Moreover, Inspections are rare and irregular: Although the law mandates monthly inspections of CCIs by Juvenile Justice Boards and regular field visits by District Child Protection Officers, compliance is extremely low. Out of the 1,992 inspections expected across 14 states and one UT in a year, only 810 inspections could be evidenced. Similarly, only 26 CCIs were visited monthly by DCPOs out of 105 institutions reviewed. This lack of consistent oversight raises serious concerns about safety, quality of care and the detection of risk or abuse inside CCIs. These gaps reflect a disconnect between what the law envisions and what many children experience.
Severe Data and Transparency Gaps: Large portions of RTI requests filed to assess CCI functioning went unanswered, were redirected to districts, or were rejected outright. The absence of a centralised, updated data system hampers monitoring, conceals systemic failures, and prevents early detection of issues related to safety or resource shortages.
Caseloads and Pendency: An analysis of 362 JJBs revealed a combined caseload of 100,904 cases, with only 45% disposed of in the year studied. Disposal rates varied dramatically from 79% in Mizoram to 17% in Odisha reflecting severe disparities in board effectiveness. These delays contribute to extended institutional stays for children, contrary to the Act’s emphasis on timely inquiry.
Incomplete Benches: Of 470 JJBs that responded, 24% lacked full benches. Many operated without one or both social workers, critically compromising the child-centric nature of decision-making. Bihar reported that 73% of its JJBs were missing social workers, demonstrating acute structural deficiencies.
Way Ahead
Experts and child rights organisations consistently recommend filling staff vacancies and investing in specialised training, making inspection data publicly accessible, ensuring every child has a meaningful Individual Care Plan, improving vocational programmes in partnership with accredited institutes, strengthening non-institutional alternatives like foster care, sponsorship and aftercare and expanding district-level monitoring so children are not lost in the system. The goal is to shift CCIs from custodial spaces to genuinely rehabilitative environments where children feel supported, not punished.
Underutilisation of Juvenile Justice Funds: Although the JJ Act allows every state to create a dedicated Juvenile Justice Fund to support care and rehabilitation, utilisation remains weak. Several states have large unspent balances, reflecting administrative bottlenecks and limited capacity to design and fund programmes for children. Under-utilisation of available funds means persistent shortages in trained staff, weak skill-based programmes, and inadequate mental health services inside CCIs.
In broader context, child care institutions are one part of India’s child protection landscape. Their effectiveness depends not only on infrastructure and staff but also on empathy, consistency and meaningful engagement with each child’s history and aspirations. When they work well, they can transform lives; when they fall short, they risk compounding the trauma of already vulnerable children. Systemic Weaknesses: Many of the challenges within the juvenile justice system mirror those found in the adult criminal justice system like understaffing, vacancies, poor record-keeping, slow case disposal and weak monitoring. Instead of operating as a corrective to these weaknesses, the juvenile framework often reproduces them. As a result, children who should be protected and rehabilitated frequently face the consequences of broader systemic inefficiencies.
Related Terms
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015
Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)
Child Welfare Committee (CWC)
Children in Need of Care and Protection (CNCP)
