Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine #977 of July 29, 2026

Who is affected: orphaned children and children deprived of parental care; children who were deported or forcibly displaced as a result of the aggression of the Russian Federation; children in difficult life circumstances, in particular those affected by hostilities; children and adults with disabilities; candidate mentors; providers of the social service of organizing mentorship; institutions in which children reside; legal entities ready to join corporate mentorship; the State Service for Children’s Affairs and the National Social Service.

Summary:

  • defines the sequence for organizing and carrying out mentorship: training of trainers, preparation of candidate mentors, mutual matching, the agreement, ongoing support, and monitoring;
  • establishes requirements for candidate mentors: a person with legal capacity aged 21 or over, a citizen of Ukraine permanently residing in Ukraine;
  • introduces two forms of mentorship: individual (carried out by a natural person) and corporate (carried out by a legal entity, in respect of persons aged 14 and over, for the purpose of social, educational, and professional support);
  • requires a package of checks from the candidate: a medical certificate, a criminal record extract, and a letter from the National Police confirming the absence of recorded instances of domestic violence or gender-based violence;
  • provides for a mandatory in-person training course for candidate mentors and their subsequent assessment, on the basis of which the provider issues a conclusion on the ability to carry out mentorship or a reasoned written refusal;
  • sets the validity period of the conclusion at one year, and for the period of martial law at two years;
  • regulates the child’s stay in the mentor’s family: an inspection of the living conditions by the children’s affairs service, the written consent of all adult members of the mentor’s family, a criminal record extract for each of them, and a stay of no more than 14 calendar days during holidays and school breaks;
  • enshrines the right of a person to decline mentorship or terminate it at any stage, and, if a child in an institution declines, the child may be informed again no earlier than two months later;
  • obliges any person who becomes aware of a violation of a child’s rights by a mentor to notify the provider no later than one working day;
  • introduces a system of support for the mentors themselves: consultations monthly during the first three months and quarterly thereafter; supervision at least once every six months, including measures to prevent emotional burnout;
  • explicitly prohibits the use of corporate mentorship to pressure children into purchasing goods, taking part in advertising campaigns, or engaging in activities in the company’s interests.

What is right:

  • Multi-layered protection of the child is guaranteed. A domestic violence check alongside the criminal record check, the consent and criminal record extracts of all adult members of the mentor’s family before the child’s first visit to their home, the obligation to report a violation within one working day, and the automatic invalidation of the conclusion when an agreement is terminated because of a threat to the child — these are not formal barriers but a system for preventing abuse in this area.
  • Mentorship is carried out only with the child’s voluntary consent, and the child may withdraw from it at any time.
  • It establishes a system of support and supervision for mentors, including measures to prevent psychological and emotional burnout. Mentoring a child who has survived the loss of parents, deportation, or war is emotionally exhausting work, and the state acknowledges for the first time that support is needed not only for the child, but also for the adult alongside them.

What is wrong:

The procedure contains no separate mechanism for reimbursing a mentor’s expenses, in particular the costs of travel to the child, joint activities, and meals during the child’s stay with the family. Mentorship de facto remains an activity for those who can afford it at their own expense, which narrows the pool of potential mentors along property lines.

Alternative solution:

Reimbursement of a mentor’s basic expenses — in particular for travel to the child and for joint activities — should be provided for at least at a minimum level, with the possibility of financing from local budgets and/or donor funds. The absence of such reimbursement may limit participation in mentorship by people who are unable to cover the relevant costs at their own expense, and may deepen inequality in access to mentorship.