RIGHTS OF CHILDREN IN SMALL FAMILY-TYPE CHILDREN’S HOMES programme as a basic tool to be guided with.139 Our monitoring showed that, in most cases, the children’s homes do not have such programmes as a single document. Some of the children’s homes either do not have internal regulations or where they do have such regulations, they are defective. With a view of receiving feedback, there are complaints boxes installed at children’s homes. Both complaints boxes and comments boxes are usually empty. The children’s homes are keeping journals to register any measures implemented in response to feedback or comments received. Where they do have such journals, they are kept formalistically or are empty. At some of the children’s homes, journals on any measures taken in response to feedback received contain some entries but there is no indication as to when the measures were implemented or what the result was. Accident registration journals are often times empty as well, which creates the impression that they are maintained only formalistically. In some cases educators denied any occurrence of accidents but the documents maintained at their institutions (handover journals, personal files, Medical Form No. IV-100/A, notices about medical appointments) prove to the contrary. For the most of time, the journals to register measures implemented in response to violence are empty as well. The small family-type children’s homes must be maintaining journals for the registration of admissions to and discharges from specialized institutions.140 In contravention of the established standard, these journals are not always filled out in a complete manner. Journals for registration of temporary leaves from the children’s home are kept also in violation of the established rules. Individual approach to services Article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child prescribes the need for a periodic review of the treatment provided to children under care and obliges the States Parties to protect the right of children placed under the care of competent authorities to have the care conditions evaluated periodically. We would like to note that that it is the obligation of social workers, before the child is actually allocated to a children’s home, to inform the service provider as much as possible about the prospective beneficiary’s case. As the educators say, normally, this does not happen in reality. At children’s homes run by the Association “SOS Children’s Villages Georgia”, we identified that State-employed social workers have delegated their rights and obligations to other social workers employed within the “Family Enhancement Project”. Sometimes the social workers of the Association pay visits to the beneficiaries’ biological families at their own initiative to study the children’s family conditions despite the fact that they know they are not authorized to do so. 139 The Childcare Standards, Article 1(2)(a.b). 140 Annex 3, Order of the Minister of Labor, Health and Social Protection No. 52/N dated 26 February 2010 approving “Terms and conditions of admission to and discharge from specialized institutions”. 2013 Within the monitoring, the Special Preventive Group examined the beneficiaries’ personal files maintained by the children’s homes. Although all of the files include decisions of local competent authorities admitting the children to a children’s home or extending their stay at the children’s home, the beneficiaries’ documents are often times incomplete. In particular, the individual development plans and individual servicing plans are drafted formalistically containing scarce and incomplete information. The plans do not describe in detail objectives to be achieved, activities to achieve the objectives, achievement indicators and timetable. The plans do not envisage the beneficiaries’ individual needs, objectives and activities. The language used in the plans is usually the same for all plans. Any results achieved or implementation progress are not indicated in the plans. The records do not provide information about the views of the children, their caregivers and the service provider about the plans and the progress of their implementation. Whether the beneficiaries’ were consulted about their own plans cannot be discerned from the records. NPM Report 71