About
Over the last decade, European Union’s money and influence have catalysed positive reforms in the child protection and welfare systems both inside and outside the EU, supporting the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care[1].
This section aims to present a snapshot of the real implementation of EU funds towards deinstitutionalisation for children across EU Member States, as well as pre-accession countries and EU Neighbours during the current 2014-2020 funding period.
We present data collected from our national coordinators across Europe. This complements and builds on the analysis conducted by Community Living for Europe: Structural Funds Watch (covering EU countries and not limited to institutions for children), to which several Opening Doors campaign countries have also substantially contributed[2].
We are also making the case why positive elements in existing regulations should be maintained, strengthened and further expanded to other funding programmes in the post-2020 EU budget[3].
The next Multiannual Financial Framework offers a real opportunity to build on lessons learnt and to ensure that EU funds promote social inclusion, contribute to policy coherence and better protect the rights of children who have been unnecessarily deprived of caring families and communities.
——-
European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)
During the programming period 2014–2020, the ESF regulations promoted the transition from institutional to community- based care. In addition, Recital 19 of the ESF regulations clearly states that funds should not be used for any action that contributes to segregation or social exclusion.
Bulgaria
Over the past decade, Bulgaria has pushed on with a comprehensive transformation of its child protection system. Since 2009, there has been a massive decrease (more than 80%) in the number of children placed in institutional care: from 7587 children in 2009 to 979 children at the end of 2017.
As of 2017, all specialised institutions for children with disabilities have been closed. The EU has played a crucial role in this transformation during current and the 2007–2013 funding period.
During the 2014–2020 funding period, more than €160 million from ESIF (ESF, ERDF, and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) has been allocated to support the ’Vision for Deinstitutionalisation of Children in Bulgaria and its Action Plan’ via the Operational Programme ’Regions in Growth’, the Operational Programme ‘Human Resources Development’ and the Operational Programme ’Science and Education for Smart Growth’.
Actions of the different Operational Programmes include: reconstruction and maintenance of buildings (e.g. small group homes); training and supervision of the specialists working in the newly established services; development of new services for children and families (medico-social services, community centres); foster-care development, and salaries of employees.
Romania
Romania is a country that has benefited from the support of ESIF in both the funding period 2007–2013 and during this funding period. Importantly, the Romanian government announced in spring 2017 that more than €100 million from the ESF and the ERDF will be used for the closure of 50 old-type institutions and the development of preventative services. This is an important step as the development of prevention services ensures that children will no longer enter any form of care when they can be cared in their own families. According to the Romanian Government’s declaration, this is only a pilot project and if it proves to be successful, another call will be issued and other institutions will be targeted for closure using EU funds.
Estonia
In Estonia, since 2017, with the help of ESF funds, services to support guardianship families and adoptive parents have been developed and offered by different organisations. In total, €6 million has been allocated under ESF for care reforms including: counselling via internet or phone; individual psychological counselling; mentoring, and different forms of group counselling. In 2016–2017, PRIDE (Parent Resources for Information, Development and Education) pre-service training was accepted by the state as the main training for adoptive and foster families, it has been comprehensively updated and adapted to the Estonian context with the support of the ESF. The ESF programme is under the Operational Programme for Cohesion Policy Funding 2014–2020 measure ‘Improving the quality of alternative care’.
Lithuania
In Lithuania, 53 €76 million of ESIF have been allocated during this funding period for the transition from institutional to community- based care. Of the €76 million, €38 million has been set aside for the development, piloting, and implementation of new social services and the remaining amount is to be used towards the development of infrastructure.
The first phase of implementation of the country’s deinstitutionalisation plan, which has been prolonged for one year until 2019, includes:
- Evaluation of individual needs of the residents in institutions participating in the reform;
- Evaluation of motivation and competencies of the co- workers of institutions participating in the reform;
- Development of the package of methodological documents describing new types of services;
- Preparation of plans of individual needs of the residents of institutions participating in the reform;
- Preparation of transition plans for institutions;
- Plans of development of services and infrastructure in the regions;
- Education of society;
- Increase the availability of community-based services by provision of new types of services (pilot models).
The second phase of implementation of the deinstitutionalisation plan includes:
- Developing infrastructure of services in regions;
- Provision of new forms of services to beneficiaries.
Croatia
In May 2017, five calls for proposals financed by the ESF were launched to support deinstitutionalisation and strengthening of families in Croatia, in line with the Master Plan 2011–2018.54 They include: support of the deinstitutionalisation process and transformation of 18 state institutions into homes for adults and children with disabilities; support of the process of deinstitutionalisation and prevention of institutionalisation of children and youth; improving access of vulnerable groups to the labour market in the tourism sector; support of social inclusion and employment of marginalised groups of people, and expansion of the social services network in the community.
Latvia
In Latvia, €91,651,238 million from ESF and ERDF (including 15% state/municipalities co-financing) has been prioritised for deinstitutionalisation reforms. To date, only projects under the ESF have started being implemented, mainly for actions related to the evaluation of individual needs, preparation of individual deinstitutionalisation plans, reorganisation plans for childcare.
Key asks regarding European Social Fund+ regulations for the 2021-2027 funding period:
- Preserve the promotion of the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care in the European Social Fund+ (ESF+) proposed regulations
- Increase the ESF+ benchmark dedicated to social inclusion and poverty reduction from 25% to 30%
- Strengthen the implementation of Partnership Principle and the European Code of Conduct and Partnership (ECCP) in the proposed regulations of ESF+.
- Specifically, Article 8.1 of the ESF+ proposed regulations should refer to effective (not adequate) participation of civil society and social partners throughout the cycle of EU-funded programmes
- Under Article 8.2 of the ESF+ proposed regulations, at least 2% of the ESF+ funds should be earmarked under each operational programme for the capacity building of social partners and civil society organisations
See full text of recommendations here
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)
During the programming period 2014–2020, the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) regulations promoted the transition from institutional to community- based care. In addition, current ERDF regulations state that the transition from institutional to community-based care should be promoted. The ERDF regulations do not allow for actions that contribute to segregation or social exclusion of people.
Bulgaria
In Bulgaria, during the 2014–2020 funding period, more than €160 million from ESIF (ESF, ERDF, and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development) has been allocated to support the ’Vision for Deinstitutionalisation of Children in Bulgaria and its Action Plan’ via the Operational Programme ’Regions in Growth’, the Operational Programme ‘Human Resources Development’ and the Operational Programme ’Science and Education for Smart Growth’.
Actions of the different Operational Programmes include: reconstruction and maintenance of buildings (e.g. small group homes); training and supervision of the specialists working in the newly established services; development of new services for children and families (medico-social services, community centres); foster-care development, and salaries of employees.
Poland
The ERDF 2014–2020 resources are available in Poland with respect to social inclusion and poverty eradication. However, concerns have been raised that these resources tend to be used to support research and capacity-building projects rather than developing local resources, strengthening families, and reducing the need for institutional care.
Key asks regarding European Social Fund+ regulations for the 2021-2027 funding period:
- The promotion of the transition from institutional to family and community based care should be retained as an investment priority in the 2021-2027 ERDF regulations under proposed Article 2 (d) on socio-economic inclusion of marginalised communities.
- Strengthen the implementation of Partnership Principle and the European Code of Conduct and Partnership (ECCP) in the proposed regulations of ERDF
- Strengthen the commitment enshrined in the proposed regulations of ERDF to prohibit the use of EU funds on actions that contribute to social exclusion or segregation of people.
See full text of recommendations here
European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI)
The ENI is the EU’s main instrument for financing its neighbourhood region during the 2014–2020 financial period. The ENI aims to encourage democracy and human rights, sustainable development, and the transition towards a market economy in the EU’s neighbouring partner countries. In particular, it supports political and economic reforms.
Disappointingly, the European Neighbourhood Instrument has not contributed to deinstitutionalisation reforms in the two Opening Doors countries, Ukraine and Moldova. We take this opportunity to reflect on the use of the previous instrument for the European Neighbourhood.
Moldova
The first steps in deinstitutionalisation reform in Moldova were initiated through the Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States (TACIS) project ‘Capacity Building in Social Policy Reform’ (December 2003–December 2006) implemented by the NGO EveryChild and funded with €2.6 million by European Commission.
The three-year TACIS 1 project (2003–2006) prepared the ground and launched Moldova’s residential care reform in May 2006, with backing from the country’s president. Some difficult advocacy and lobbying work was required to get the president on side, but it was important to have his backing to create the community social assistance network and oppose residential care. The findings of the financial analysis of the expenditure on residential care of children, the negative effects on children of residential care based on assessments carried out in institutions, cost-efficiency of alternative care (i.e. foster care) and of the gatekeeping mechanism – all these project deliverables provided strong arguments to the president and the government to launch residential care reform in the country.
All legal frameworks regarding gatekeeping mechanisms, foster care, and family support services were developed within TACIS 1 (Foster Care Regulations and Minimum Standards, Gatekeeping Mechanisms, Family Support Regulations). The 18-month TACIS 2 was launched in parallel with TACIS 1 at the end of 2006. TACIS 2 aimed to build on the results of the TACIS 1 and had as key outcomes:
- the development and approval of the National Plan and Strategy for the Reform of the Residential Care System;
- development of the Master Plan for the transformation of residential institutions.
In Moldova, the government committed to continuing deinstitutionalisation reforms through adopting the 2014–2020 Child Protection Strategy (approved in May 2014) and its Action Plan (approved in May 2016). The strategy sets out the objective to continue the reforms by ensuring a family environment for all children including through closing institutions for school-aged children; gradually banning the institutionalisation of children below three years of age; and ensuring children with disabilities are not left out of the process.
Ukraine
In Ukraine, according to the latest data, there are almost 100,000 children growing up in institutional care, mostly due to poverty and lack of support services in the community. At the same time, there is a commitment from both civil society and the government to proceed to deinstitutionalisation reforms for children. In August 2017, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine (national government) adopted the Decree on Approval of a National Strategy on Reform of institutional Care System for 2017–2026.
Key asks regarding Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument in the 2021-2027 funding period:
- Ensure that a specific amount of investments under Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) contribute to social inclusion and integration of children in the communities
- At least 20% of the Official Development Assistance funded under NDICI regulation should be earmarked for social inclusion and human development.
- To adequately address the demographic dividend and to ensure the highest transformative potential to break the cycle of poverty and inequality, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals and the EU Consensus for Development, at least 25% of annual spending under geographic programmes shall be targeting actions directly relevant to children’s rights, especially those most left behind.
- Expand commitment to the prohibition of using the EU funds on actions that contribute to segregation or social exclusion to AMF, IPA III and NDICI proposed regulations
- Expand conditionality to access EU funds to promote the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care, in line with national strategic policy frameworks to NDICI proposed regulations
See full text of recommendations here
Instrument of Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) II
The IPA II regulation was adopted in March 2014. IPA II puts a strong emphasis on structural reforms as the basis for the accession process and sets a new framework for providing pre-accession assistance for the period 2014–2020. IPA II targets reforms within the framework of pre-defined sectors, which cover areas linked to the Enlargement Strategy (democracy and governance, rule of law, growth and competitiveness). Overall, and among other European Funding Instruments, IPA II is seen as one of the most important EU actions for supporting the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. IPA II also takes account of the EU Global Strategy, which sets out the EU’s core interests and principles for engaging in the wider world.
Serbia
In Serbia, the allocation of funding at both national and EU levels is critical for deinstitutionalisation reforms to succeed.
The domestic budget is primarily concerned with continuing the current system of institutional care for children. IPA II is unique in its capacity to cover the costs associated with the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care for children in Serbia. In 2013, through IPA II, funds totalling €1,450,642,9769 were allocated to seven projects towards the deinstitutionalisation reform process.
Although realisation of these projects began in 2017, there is little information on how much of these funds are allocated for deinstitutionalisation reforms for children, since the deinstitutionalisation reform process includes both adults and children. There are concerns amongst CSOs that the funds will not be used in a sustainable manner, since the Government of Serbia has not yet published a deinstitutionalisation strategy and plan. Importantly, in the period 2015–2016, deinstitutionalisation was not prioritised by IPA II, which adds to civil society concerns about the sustainability of the deinstitutionalisation reforms. Programming of IPA II in 2017 is ongoing and civil society in Serbia is recommending the prioritisation of deinstitutionalisation in the next funding period. The general impression is that information on deinstitutionalisation in Serbia is not transparent, difficult to find, and some of it is inaccessible.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the EU has played an important role in eradicating institutions for children. In 2014, €1.5 million was granted under IPA II to support the transformation of care institutions over the period 2014–2017. In December 2015, Bosnia Herzegovina received €1 million under IPA 2014 to support the transformation of care institutions over the period of three years following the date of conclusion of the Financing Agreement. Through IPA II, two new services have been developed: an emergency reception centre and a day centre for children at risk. Also with the support of IPA II, four institutions are in the process of closure and 98 professionals underwent training seminars. The services previously funded by IPA II are now funded by the domestic budget and have contributed to the strengthening of the country’s child protection system. This commitment of the EU should continue through the 2018–2020 IPA II. Civil society recommends that investments for this funding period include the transformation process of other institutions for children, the strengthening of capacities of centres for social work and the development of infrastructure, e.g. alternative services such as small group homes.
Key asks regarding Instrument of Pre-accession Assistance in the 2021-2027 funding period:
- Ensure that the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care is included in the Instrument of Pre-accession Assistance III (IPA III) proposals
- Include the Partnership Principle in the IPA III proposed regulations
- Expand commitment to the prohibition of using the EU funds on actions that contribute to segregation or social exclusion to AMF, IPA III and NDICI proposed regulations
- Expand conditionality to access EU funds to promote the transition from institutional to family- and community-based care, in line with national strategic policy frameworks in IPA III proposed regulations
See full text of recommendations here
AMF
The Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) was set up for the period 2014–20, with a total of €3.137 billion for seven years. It promotes the efficient management of migration flows and the implementation, strengthening, and development of a common approach to asylum and immigration.
Austria
The AMIF is used in Austria for a broad range of services with a special focus on language acquisition and education, preparation for workplace integration and general orientation. However, services that focus on families as a whole or that support parents more broadly (e.g. participating in the education of their children, health promotion, nationwide early intervention services) are still rare.
One of the most urgent problems for unaccompanied minors coming of age and families leaving institutional care in Austria is access to affordable housing, particularly in the urban areas. Additional services that provide living spaces, combined with ambulant support services and gender-sensible approach are needed to support their education, integration to the labour market and general orientation in the new environment.
Greece
In January 2018, there were approximately 3,270 unaccompanied and separated migrant children in Greece and only 1,083 of them (33%) were placed in shelters for unaccompanied children. The rest of the children were on the waiting lists, placed in police departments, reception centres, ‘safe zones’ at refugee camps or temporary accommodation sites. Greece relies heavily on civil society for the protection of unaccompanied and separated migrant and refugee children. In 2016, €294.5 million of funds available under Greece’s AMIF and €214.7 million of funds from Internal Security Fund (ISF) national programmes were allocated to support the establishment and operation of reception places for unaccompanied minors and other vulnerable groups, which were amongst the programmes’ priorities.77 Under the AMIF national programme, funding was also allocated to support the establishment of a guardianship system as well as access to education, in particular for children.
Although the EU has allocated vast amounts of money through AMIF and the fund for humanitarian aid for the protection of people in migration, and of children in particular, it seems that the funds do not cover the needs since thousands of children are still not protected and they grow up in dangerous for their development conditions. In addition, it is of worry, that none of these actions funded by AMIF or humanitarian aid funding have been allocated towards the strengthening of the country’s mainstream child protection system. These investments were made on an ad-hoc basis with no plan in place to ensure the sustainability of investments. In reality, these investments create parallel systems, focusing only on migrant children.
Bulgaria
In 2016, there were 6,447 migrant children registered in Bulgaria of whom 2,768 were unaccompanied and separated children. Lack of safe and appropriate accommodation for unaccompanied children remains one of the biggest gaps in Bulgarian child protection system and requires urgent solution. Almost all unaccompanied and separated children live in reception and registration centres for refugees that cannot provide adequate care or ensure safety of children. In addition, children who
arrive in Bulgaria, with or without parents, are often placed in immigration detention, in contravention of the UNCRC. The child protection system does not have capacity to meet the needs of the growing number of unaccompanied and separated children in Bulgaria based on Best Interest Assessment and Best Interest Determination procedures for the migrant, asylum-seeking and refugee children. Those unaccompanied and separated children who do not seek protection or are denied of it have no access to health care or education. Their legal guardians or legal representatives cannot be appointed because children do not have identity documents and according to Bulgarian law, a legal representative can be only appointed to a child who seeks international protection or has been granted such protection.
During the funding period 2014–2020, over €20 million has been allocated to Bulgaria under Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). According to the latest report from the Ministry of Interior78 in 2014-2017, key projects under AMIF targeted reconstruction of the reception centres, prime adaptation of the asylum-seekers, legal counseling, daily activities for children and women and voluntary return to the countries of origin. During recent years and as described in previous sections of this report, European Structural and Investment Funds in Bulgaria have been used towards strengthening of the national child protection system. It is crucial that allocations of AMIF are aligned with the rest of EU funds and that they are not spent on the ad hoc projects that only support children in migration in the short term. It is essential to ensure that for both current and the next funding periods, EU funds in Bulgaria are used towards sustainable reforms that will support all children within strengthened national child protection system.
Key asks regarding Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund in the 2021-2027 funding period:
- Earmark 30% of the Asylum Migration Fund (AMF) allocation and spending for the development and strengthening of the Common European Asylum System
- Expand commitment to the prohibition of using the EU funds on actions that contribute to segregation or social exclusion to AMF, IPA III and NDICI proposed regulations. Effective alternatives to institutional care and detention for children should be prioritised under this funding stream.
