THE institutions for permanent and part-time collective care, whose traditions date from the early Middle-Ages, were created for social and sanitary reasons-not for psychological and pedagogical ones. They offered a refuge and protection to children who otherwise would have been abandoned or seriously neglected. After World War I and particularly after World War II new social needs arose in connection with the increasing number of employed women. Until the beginning of this century the tragic mortality and morbidity rate was the main problem for collective education. It was not until the main sanitary questions were solved that it was possible to see the importance of psychological aspects in their full light. The children’s homes were no longer criticised by sanitary workers and many became examples of the high standards of the health service, but they began to be exposed to the criticism of the psychologists and psychiatrists. This criticism began as early as in the thirties of this century in the Viennese psychological school directed by Charlotte Biihler and was dramatically extended in the forties in the classical studies of R. A. Spitz, W. Goldfarb and J. Bowlby. John Bowlby’s monograph “Maternal care and mental health” (WHO, 1951) sums up the present knowledge in this field, the S.C. “maternal deprivation”. He comes to the convincing conclusion that the child in his first three years needs, above all, the warm, intimate and stable relationship with the mother (or with the person who takes her place). Collective care, in which the child as a rule suffers from the lack of such an emotional tie, leads to many disturbances of mental health, e.g. mental retardation, psychopathic development of the personality, great resistance to therapy, etc. Some extreme conclusions have been drawn from these findings e.g. a bad family is better than the best institution since it offers to the child the opportunity of having that unique emotional tie to the mother. A children’s home, even with the highest level of organisation, would not be able to do this. The radical limitation of institutional care for children and a great expansion of foster care followed logically from these ideas. In the following period, i.e. in the fifties the original “pessimistic” conception was modified to some extent. It became clear: 1. that the care for children in institutions is sometimes the only way of rescuing severely neglected or endangered children and that the physical and mental health of these children sometimes improves considerably in the