Summary

• Author: Nordenmark Severinsson, Anna; Lerch, Véronique
• Pages: 6-6

Target Group Discussion Paper Children in Alternative Care

6

Summary

This report takes a broad definition of the Target Group ‘children residing in institutions’

and will capture the situation of children in alternative care in European Union (EU)

countries. By using the term ‘children in alternative care’, the aim of this report is to show

that an effective decrease in the numbe r of children in institutional care can only be

sustained through measures including th e 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.

Despite a strong international and European framework protecting and promoting the

rights of children in alternative care (whi ch includes the TG) and an EU focus on

deinstitutionalisation at policy and funding levels, too many children still live in alternative

care institutions or in inadequate and sub-standard forms of alternative care. Some of the

barriers identified include: lack of a holistic strategy; lack of political will; support of public

opinion for residential care; poor management; and under-financing.

According to the available data gathered for the purposes of the FSCG, around 340,000

children are estimated to live in residential care across the EU. Large portions of those

residential care facilities have an institutional culture and are incompatible with

international human rights stand ards. This figure for the number of children in residential

care in the EU should be used with extreme cau tion as it is only a rough estimate based

on incomplete data. Statistics related to the TG are incomplete and unreliabl e. The lack of

reliable and disaggregated data makes it more difficult for Member States of the EU (MS)

to develop adequate and efficient policies to protect and care for the TG. It is also essential

to get more qualitative data about the situation of children in alternative care, as the mere

numbers do not give an y indication about the quality of care and protection the children

receive.

This report is only a snapshot of the current situation, considering the lack of complete

data. One challenge for this EU-wide analysis is the different terms used for different types

of care. There is no international or EU-wide a greed use of te rms related to alternative

care. In some cases, the terms are often not even harmonised at national level. To facilitate

an understanding of this report, some key terms used in the literature on the TG have been

defined at the end.

Based on the existing data, it i s clear that there are many overlaps with th e other TGs

identified for the Chi ld Guarantee (children with disabilities, Roma children, migrant and

refugee children, and children living in precarious family situations), who are all at a higher

risk of being placed into care institutions than other groups of chi ldren.

A more strategic approach based on comprehensive national policies and implementation

plans related to the TG and their families could contribute to greater effectiveness in the

use of EU Funds. More quantitative and qualitative data on children in alternative care are

needed to understand the needs of the TG, and the current situation in respect of

alternative care systems across Europe. For a more effective use of EU Funds, the projects

should be embedded in nati onal policies and it should be ensure d that national budgets

will take over when EU funding ends. In the next funding period, the requirement to set

up policy frameworks that will promote the transition from institutional care to family-

based care should not be limited to the 12 countries2 identified by the European

Commission (EC) in this funding period. All MS would benefit from improving their

alternative care systems, if possible with the support of the EU Structu ral and Investment

Funds (ESIF).

2 Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia,

and Slovenia.