Definition of the target groups (TGs) and estimation of their size at Member State level

AuthorGuio, A-C.; Marlier, E.; Frazer, H.
Pages18-46
Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee (FSCG) Final Report
18
2. Definition of the target groups (TGs) and estimation of their
size at Member State level17
This chapter presents the definitions of the four TGs; that is, children in institutions,
children with disabilities, children of recent migrants and refugees, and children living in
precarious family situations. These definitions are those that have been used in all the
deliverables submitted in the context of the FSCG.
For each TG, this chapter mobilises available evidence to try to assess the size of the TGs
in each Member State (in so far as evidence allows). The chapter also briefly discusses the
quality, reliability, coverage, and limitations of the information available. It also presents
the source(s) chosen in those areas where more than one source is available.
2.1 Children in institutions
2.1.1 Definition of the TG
In line with the UN guidelines for the alternative care of children, children in institutions
are children who, for various reasons, are deprived of parental care and for whom an
alternative care placement in residential care institutions has been found. In various
Member States, alternative care placements for children without parental care can be
provided in different environments, such as informal or formal kinship care (with relatives
or friends), foster care, independent living arrangements (often for older children), or in
residential care. Residential care can be provided in a family-like environment or in
institutions.
Residential care/institutional care can also be provided in boarding school facilities,18 in
shelters for homeless children or in hospital settings, in the absence of alternatives (this is
most often the case for very young children, such as new-borns who are
relinquished/abandoned directly after birth and for whom more permanent care is being
sought).
The definition of the TG does not include:
children deprived of liberty as a result of being in conflict with the law;
infant children living in prisons with their mothers; and
children hospitalised for long periods of time.
However, these excluded groups of children should be recognised as being as vulnerable
as the groups included. On leaving these institutions they are likely to experience difficulty
in accessing the five social rights under scrutiny and thus they will also need to be covered
by the types of measures proposed in the FSCG.
Figure 2.1 provides details on the different types of alternative care that are often available
in Member States, and which need to be further diversified in order for children deprived
of parental care not to be placed in institutional care. Social workers need to have a range
of options to choose from, in order to refer a child to the form of care best suited for them.
For this reason, the FSCG took a wider perspective and looked at children in alternative
care. It is important to ensure that an effective decrease in the number of children in
institutional care can only be sustained through measures which include the development
of family support services, the strengthening of other alternative care options such as
foster care or kinship care, and the adoption of high-quality alternative care standards.
17 This chapter draws heavily on the five FSCG Policy Papers, the four FSCG Target Group Discussion Papers,
and the discussions at the FSCG’s four fact-finding workshops. These papers in turn draw on the 28 FSCG
Country Reports. See ‘List of FSCG Experts, List of documents generated within the FSCG and References’.
18 Care in a boarding school would be considered institutional care if the child is placed on a permanent basis
and has lost contact with their family and community.
Feasibility Study for a Child Guarantee (FSCG) Final Report
19
Figure 2.1: Different types of alternative care
Note: This figure only indicates some types of care and is not comprehensive. Many forms of alternative care can
be developed to meet the individual needs of children.
Large-scale institutional care with an institutional culture should never be used.
International child rights standards, such as the aforementioned UN guidelines and the
common European guidelines for the transition from institutional care to community-based
care,19 call for the progressive elimination of institutional care for children and the
development of a range of alternative care options. Efforts have been made to define
institutional care, with the UN guidelines defining it by reference to the size of the
residential care facility. The common European guidelines have gone further and defined
institutions or institutional care by reference to the institutional culture of the care
environment rather than the size of the care facility: this culture is defined by the fact that
residents are isolated from the broader community and/or compelled to live together;
residents do not have sufficient control over their lives and over decisions which affect
them; and the requirements of the organisation itself tend to take precedence over the
residents’ individualised needs. Even though the care facility is not defined by the number
of residents, size is an important factor: smaller and m ore personalised living
arrangements are more likely to ensure opportunit ies for choice and self-determination of
service users and to provide a needs-led service. In Member States, residential care can
be provided by public authorities directly, or by private service providers such as non-
governmental organisations (NGOs), faith-based organisations, and private sector
businesses.
The FSCG reports take a wide perspective. They do not focus solely on deinstitutionalisation
policies, but cover policies and strategies related to children in alternative care in general
or at risk of losing parental care, including preventive measures.
2.1.2 Size of the TG in the various EU Member States
Availability and reliability of data
The lack of reliable national data makes it extremely difficult to estimate the number of
children in alternative care, and more specifically of children in institutional care, in the
EU, and therefore to fully capture and monitor their situation. The estimate of the number
of children in residential care provided in this report should be looked at with caution for
reasons mentioned hereafter.
19 Bulić, with Anguelova-Mladenova (2012).
Informal kinship
care
Type of care
'provided by
relatives or other
caregivers close
to the family and
known to the
child'
Formal family-
based care
Formal kinship
care
Foster care
Supported
independent
living
Residential
care
Small-group
homes in family-
like style
Larger residential
care facilities,
orphanages,
institutions
(many names)
Boarding school
facilities

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT