It was a black-and-white photograph in a newspaper. It showed a small boy, locked in a caged bed in a residential institution. His hands clutched what appeared to be chicken wire containing him, and his expression was agonised. There would be no Lumos – the charity dedicated to closing child institutions and so-called orphanages – if there hadn’t first been this picture. I knew the immediate shameful impulse to turn away, to hide the page, not to look. 
 
 I could try to justify that impulse by saying that I was pregnant at the time, feeling vulnerable and hormonal. The sad truth remains that my instinctive reaction to that picture could stand as a metaphor for the attitude that has enabled the unjustifiable incarceration of 8 million children around this world to take place with little outrage or comment. Ashamed of that reflexive refusal to look, I forced myself to turn back to the picture and read the article. 
 
 It told of a nightmarish institution where children as young as six were caged most of the day and night. I ripped the article out, and the following day I began writing letters to everybody I could think of with influence in the matter. 
 
 These efforts led quickly to the establishment of Lumos, named for the spell I created in Harry Potter to bring light to some dark and frightening places. Part of our work in Lumos is to shed light on the lives of those millions of children separated from their families for reasons of poverty, disability and discrimination. 
 
 The shocking truth is that the vast majority of these children have parents that could care for them. They are not orphans. Most are placed in institutions by families who are too poor to provide for them, or because of a lack of local education and health facilities, especially for children with special needs. The minority who do not have parents, or for whom staying at home is not in their best interests, are often placed in institutions because there is no alternative. 
 
 The idea of any child being taken from their family and locked away, all too often in atrocious conditions, is particularly poignant at this time of year. For children in institutions, life too often resembles the darkest of Grimms’ fairytales. Georgette Mulheir, CEO of Lumos, tells how one Christmas she took sweets to the 270 children in a particular institution. What she discovered there was nightmarish. It was minus 25 outside, the heating was broken, children lay shivering in their beds, dressed in all their clothes, wrapped in threadbare blankets. 
 
 Again and again, when I quote the statistics to people who are not familiar with the field – 8 million children separated from their families worldwide – they are aghast and disbelieving. “How could that happen,” they ask, “without the whole world knowing?” The answer is really quite simple: who is easier to silence than a child? Especially a child with mental or physical disabilities, who is taken away from a family that has been convinced that it is for the best, or whose only alternative is watching that child starve. 
 
 There is now a wealth of scientific proof that institutions cause children measurable and sometimes irreparable harm. Institutionalised children are far less likely to be educated and to be physically or mentally well. Malnutrition is all too common. They are many more times likely to be abused or trafficked. The effects on infants are particularly chronic, with many failing to thrive, or dying. 
 
 The impact of not having the love and attention of a dedicated carer is profound. It can cause stunting, developmental delays and psychological trauma. I have seen babies who have learned not to cry because nobody comes. I have met children so desperate for affection that they will crawl into any stranger’s lap. 
 
 Damage is done very early, and it is lasting. Cut off from society, institutionalised children return to the world with their chances of a happy, healthy life greatly impaired, often unable to find employment, excluded from the community and more likely to enter into a lifetime of poverty and dependency. 
 
 A crucial point is that these dire effects apply to children from all kinds of institutions, including those that are well resourced. The solution is not pretty murals, or comfier beds, or teddy bears. The solution is no institutions. 
 
 The good news is that this is an entirely solvable problem. Based on the successes already achieved in several countries, Lumos estimates that the institutionalisation of children can be eradicated globally by 2050 – in our lifetime. 
 
 Where there is investment in inclusive education and health, where vulnerable families receive support for poverty, employment and social and medical problems; where there are fostering, adoption or other family-based care alternatives for children who cannot be with their parents; and where the culture of institutionalisation is replaced by one that prioritises keeping families together, children can thrive within their own families and communities. 
 
 International donors play a vital role in this regard. The issues they choose to fund, and the principles they promote, greatly influence what support is available to children and families. 
 
 Ending the practice of keeping children in institutions isn’t just a moral imperative: it makes excellent economic sense. It is far more cost-effective to support a child in a family than in an institution – and this also reduces long-term costs, since these children are far less likely to become dependent in adulthood. We know our model works. Since Lumos began working in Moldova in 2007, there has been a 70% reduction in the number of children in institutions nationally, despite chronic political instability and Moldova’s standing as the poorest country in Europe. 
 
 In the Czech Republic, while the numbers of children being admitted into institutions has dropped by 16% nationally in the past year, in Lumos’s demonstration area they have achieved a 75% fall in admissions. It is eminently possible that by 2020 there will be no more children in institutions in the Czech Republic. 
 
 Since Lumos began working in Bulgaria, the number of children in institutions has reduced by 54%. New admissions to institutions in Bulgaria have fallen by 34%, and the number of foster carers has increased by 440%, from 357 to more than 1600, providing the much-needed family environments for children who would otherwise be in institutions. 
 
 This is a critical time for getting children out of institutions. The commitments made by the EU, the US and the Global Alliance for Children – a grouping of public and private aid donors, and NGOs, of which Lumos is a key member – have set an important precedent for other donors. There is now a critical mass of expertise and evidence on which we can all build. 
 
 Many millions of people around the world want to see an end to the harmful and unnecessary practice of institutionalisation. Everyone has a role to play in that regard, which is precisely the idea behind the social media campaign #letstalklumos launched last month. Keeping this issue alive and creating awareness is a vital part of changing the future for these children. 
 
 I recently committed to becoming president of Lumos for life. It is my dream that, within my lifetime, the very concept of taking a child away from its family and locking it away will seem to belong to a cruel, fictional world. 
 
 • JK Rowling recently launched the awareness campaign #Letstalklumos (wearelumos.org/letstalklumos) 
 
 © JK Rowling, founder and president of Lumos ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption JK Rowling: "There were a couple of the Potters and I definitely knew that they needed another year" 
 
 Author JK Rowling says she is tempted to create a "director's cut" of two Harry Potter novels, because she ran out of time to finesse them. 
 
 Rowling, whose first adult novel, The Casual Vacancy, is published on Thursday, said she had deliberately taken her time to write it. 
 
 "There were a couple of the Potters and I definitely knew that they needed another year," she said. 
 
 Her final Potter book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, came out in 2007. 
 
 "I had to write on the run and there were times when it was really tough," she told BBC arts editor Will Gompertz. 
 
 "And I read them, and I think 'Oh God, maybe I'll go back and do a director's cut', I don't know. 
 
 "But you know what, I'm proud I was writing under the conditions under which I was writing, no one will ever know how tough it was at times." 
 
 Emma Watson, who starred as Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films, said the author was "too hard on herself". 
 
 "I think they [the books] are the way they were meant to be," she told BBC Newsbeat. 
 
 'Not for children' 
 
 Rowling said she wrote her latest novel simply because she "wanted to". It is aimed specifically at an older audience and includes adult themes and swear words. 
 
 "I hope that we've made it really clear that this isn't a book for children," she said. 
 
 Image caption Rowling says The Casual Vacancy is about "slicing through a society with everything that that implies" 
 
 Gompertz revealed in his blog the swearing gave him "a bit of a jolt" when reading the book, "given that she is the world's most famous children's author". 
 
 The novel is centred on the death of Barry Fairbrother, whose unexpected passing shocks the local villagers of Pagford. 
 
 Publishers Little, Brown & Co said: "Pagford is, seemingly, an English idyll, with a cobbled market square and an ancient abbey, but what lies behind the pretty facade is a town at war." 
 
 The company describes the tale as being "blackly comic, thought-provoking and constantly surprising". 
 
 Rowling, who admitted being flattered by Gompertz saying it had "something of Dickens" about it, added: "When I did start writing it I was aware that I was doing a contemporary version of what I love, which is a big, fat 19th Century novel set in a small community. 
 
 "So to an extent - swear words notwithstanding - that is what The Casual Vacancy is. 
 
 "It is a parochial - literally - novel that's looking at slicing through a society with everything that that implies. That's what I wanted to do." 
 
 She added that the huge success of of Harry Potter meant she "had nothing to prove". 
 
 "I certainly don't mean that in an arrogant way," she added, "I certainly don't mean that I think I can't improve as a writer. 
 
 "But Harry Potter truly liberated me in the sense that there's only one reason to write, for me - if I genuinely have something I want to say, and I want to publish it." 
 
 Rowling said she will judge the success of this book by "speaking to readers". 
 
 When the "hype became insane" with the latter Potter books, she described it as "a monster that was out of control" , adding that "speaking to readers really brought you back to what it should be about". 
 
 Her next novel is likely to be for younger readers, although she was keen not to commit herself to anything. 
 
 Image caption Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 was the biggest film of 2011 at the UK box office 
 
 "I think it very likely that the next thing I publish will be for kids," she said. 
 
 "I have a children's book that I really like. It's for slightly younger children than the Potter books." 
 
 However, the author admitted she was "proud" of The Casual Vacancy. 
 
 "I like it, and if you can say that, however nervous you are on publication day, you're streets ahead of the game," she said. 
 
 "Because to put out something you're not that happy with or that you think 'God, I wish I'd had another year to rework it' - and I have been in that position - is very different." 
 
 'Odd thing' about Leveson 
 
 More than 450 million copies of Rowling's seven Potter books have been sold worldwide. 
 
 The novels, about a boy wizard who survives the attack that kills his parents, became a worldwide phenomenon and were turned into eight blockbuster films starring Daniel Radcliffe. 
 
 Rowling spoke of the downside of her success, which led to her giving evidence at the recent Leveson Inquiry into media ethics. 
 
 "It was a big deal giving evidence to Leveson, because you're in that paradoxical position of trying to stick up for your privacy whilst slightly invading your own privacy," she said, adding she had to think "long and hard" about what to tell the inquiry. 
 
 "There were a couple of things that didn't go into the statement," she said. 
 
 "Because even though they represented some of the worst things that had happened to me at the hand of the press, or my family, I would have been invading my own privacy quite seriously to talk about them. So that's the odd thing about an inquiry like this." ||||| The Westboro Baptist Church—those odd, hateful people who randomly picket funerals and spout virulent bigotry—really should have thought twice before taking on J.K. Rowling. 
 
 She has sold 450 million Harry Potter books. She knows how to spin the best magic from words, which 4.67 million Twitter followers are signed up to read. 
 
 Over the weekend, elated at the vote in favor of Irish marriage equality, Rowling posted on Twitter: “Sitting here watching the Irish make history. Extraordinary and wonderful.” 
 
 Then, in response to a Tweet from someone asking: ‘What if Dumbledore and Gandalf Were Gay Together?” Rowling responded: “Then they could get married IN IRELAND,” surrounded by green love hearts, little shamrocks and rainbows. 
 
 This imagined ceremony between two imaginary characters was immediately leapt upon by the Westboro Baptist Church’s crack squad of lunatic placard-wavers, who tweeted back that if such a ceremony would happen they would picket it. 
 
 Big mistake. 
 
 Rowling shot back: “Alas, the sheer awesomeness of such a union in such a place would blow your tiny bigoted minds out of your thick sloping skulls.” 
 
 In response to one reader saying she shouldn’t respond to the WBC, to not give them the oxygen of publicity, Rowling responded, “I don’t care about WBC. I think it’s important that scared gay kids who aren’t out yet see hate speech challenged.” Which makes her response doubly admirable, as well as delicious. 
 
 Gay equality clearly means much to Rowling: the day before the Irish vote, she marked Harvey Milk Day too. 
 
 Her latest zingily-worded smackdown marks the latest foray of Rowling into the public sphere to advocate for issues close to her, itself a radical shift from the very private author she once was. 
 
 When the Harry Potter books were first being published, interviews—indeed public pronouncements—by the boy wizard’s creator were rare. Rowling was careful what she said, and whom she said it to. 
 
 Back then, everyone wanted to know what would happen next, and how the saga would end, and so Rowling wisely made herself as unavailable as possible to much public enquiry. The feverishness around the books’ publication, and the movies of course, sent sales and worldwide fandom into the stratosphere. 
 
 In recent years Rowling has become a much more public figure. Her interest in social issues, and championing of the less powerful, may in part be informed by her own experience of financially struggling when a single mother of her then-young daughter Jessica before the success of Harry Potter. 
 
 In 2008, she donated £1 million to the British Labour party, saying she believed in Labour’s commitment to tackling child poverty more than the Conservatives’ “tax perks for the married,” which, Rowling said at the time, “sends the message that the Conservatives still believe a childless, dual-income, but married couple is more deserving of a financial pat on the head than those struggling, as I once was, to keep their families afloat in difficult times.” 
 
 In 2013 Rowling—president of the single-parent organization Gingerbread—attacked the then-coalition UK government for imposing cuts on the least fortunate, and stigmatizing the poor. “I find the language of ‘skivers versus strivers’ particularly offensive when it comes to single parents, who are already working around the clock to care for their children,” she wrote. “Such rhetoric drains confidence and self-esteem from those who desperately want, as I did, to get back into the job market.” 
 
 This January, she attacked Rupert Murdoch after he said it was the responsibility of peaceful Muslims to destroy the “deadly jihadi cancer” that he said was responsible for the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris. 
 
 Rowling’s response was as stinging as the WBC received. “I was born Christian. If that makes Rupert Murdoch my responsibility, I’ll auto-excommunicate.” 
 
 Rowling was against Scottish independence, donating £1 million to the anti-independence campaign, and writing, “The simple truth is that Scotland is subject to the same twenty-first century pressures as the rest of the world. It must compete in the same global markets, defend itself from the same threats and navigate what still feels like a fragile economic recovery. The more I listen to the Yes (to independence) campaign, the more I worry about its minimisation and even denial of risks.” 
 
 In that referendum, as with the Irish marriage equality vote, Rowling proved to be on the right side of history—although with the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) resurgent after the General Election who knows for how long? 
 
 As she verbally karate-chopped the WBC, Rowling was also re-tweeting information about long-term missing people, being publicized under #TheBigTweet campaign. 
 
 Rowling revealed recently she had been called a “traitor,” “whore,” and “bitch” for her support of keeping the UK intact, though the same report also showed how she measuredly interacted with her online critics. 
 
 And if you still want to tangle with Rowling after seeing how the WBC fared, bear in mind that when she says she won’t tolerate bullies on Twitter, what she means is you are going to get your ass kicked, with a spike attached. Or, as she told one recent Twitter detractor, “The Internet doesn’t just offer opportunities for misogynistic abuse, you know. Penis enlargers can also be bought discreetly.”
– JK Rowling makes the case today that millions of kids around the world are living in appalling conditions—the stuff of Grimms' fairytales—in institutions that are supposed to be caring for them. Rowling wants to change that, not by improving these orphanages with "pretty murals" or teddy bears, but by eliminating them altogether, she writes in the Guardian. The big challenge is providing support for often-poor families who think they have no choice but to place their child in such an institution. If a child's biological family isn't up to the task, then foster families can step in. But Rowling argues that institutions are absolutely the wrong answer. Rowling has started a charity called Lumos (yes, after one of her Harry Potter spells), and writes that it has made genuine progress in reducing new placements in countries such as Bulgaria, Moldova, and the Czech Republic. She wants to raise awareness and donations with campaigns like this one. "I recently committed to becoming president of Lumos for life," writes Rowling. "It is my dream that, within my lifetime, the very concept of taking a child away from its family and locking it away will seem to belong to a cruel, fictional world." Click for her full column.