CRC/C/BOL/CO/4 page 11 the placement of children in institutions. To this effect, the State party should prioritize and target social services and family support at all levels and provide the Municipal Child Defence Offices with an adequate mandate and resources to enforce and monitor the regulations on children’s rights. Children deprived of a family environment 45. The Committee welcomes that the Child Code gives preference to family type care over institutional care, but is concerned at the increasing process of institutionalization in residential care and the collapse of the reception centres (centros de acogida). The Committee is concerned that the SEDEGES (Servicios Departamentales de Gestión Social), at departmental level do not have the institutional capacity or human or financial resources to take on sufficiently their responsibility for the alternative care. The Committee is also concerned that the regulations for alternative care are inappropriate. 46. The Committee recommends that the State party: (a) Undertake a study to assess the situation of children placed in institutions, including their living conditions and the services provided; (b) Take all necessary measures for children placed in institutions to return to their families whenever possible and consider the placement of children in institutions as a measure of last resort and for the shortest period possible; (c) Strengthen the SEDEGES with the necessary human and financial resources, as well as the required regulations to prioritize family-type care, prevent institutional mistreatment and establish appropriate mechanisms which allow children to make proposals or complaints without risking their physical or mental integrity; (d) Set clear standards for existing institutions and ensure a comprehensive mechanism of periodic review of children placed in institutions, in light of article 25 of the Convention and the recommendations emitted after the General Day of Discussion on children without parental care in 2005. Adoption 47. The Committee welcomes the measures taken by the State party, including the promotion of domestic adoptions, but is concerned that there are no systematic strategies which guarantee transparent adoption processes, and that mechanisms to monitor the post-adoption process are weak. The Committee is further concerned that the limited capacity of the Vice-Ministry for Equality of Opportunities does not permit it to carry out its functions as central authority for inter-country adoptions. 48. The Committee recommends that the State party: