South Korea's child welfare system clings to outdated institutions despite reform calls

South Korea’s child protection system still relies heavily on institutions, despite growing calls for reform. A recent law on disability rights has pushed for community-based living, yet children in need of care remain largely placed in facilities. Officials and experts now question whether the country is doing enough to change this approach. Institutions have long been the default solution for vulnerable children in South Korea. In 2024, 1,583 children—around 80% of those needing protection—were sent to facilities. More than half of all at-risk children end up in these settings, even though the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child states that institutional care should only be a last resort.

The system was designed to save lives, but its focus has often been on efficiency rather than personalised support. One child, after suffering abuse and emotional harm in a facility, was later admitted to a psychiatric hospital. No institution would take them afterward, highlighting the gaps in the current model. Alternative options remain scarce. Adoptions are rare, with only about 200 cases each year. Children fleeing troubled homes have few places to turn, as the country has yet to develop strong family- or community-based support networks. Meanwhile, progress has been made in other areas. In a recent move, Korea’s National Assembly passed the Act on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This law formally recognises the right of disabled individuals to live in their communities instead of institutions. However, child welfare policies have not yet followed the same path. A senior official from the Ministry of Health and Welfare even questioned whether deinstitutionalisation was necessary for children at all.

The disability rights law marks a step toward community-based care, but children in need of protection still face limited choices. With institutions handling most cases, the system continues to prioritise efficiency over tailored support. The challenge now is whether South Korea will expand alternatives—or keep relying on the same model for years to come.