Contemporary perspectives on child and youth welfare from different European countries

Copyright and License Statement © 2025 Alexandra Geisler & Marco Wille (eds.) Contemporary Perspectives on Child and Youth Welfare from Different European Countries Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17392706 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). The individual chapters remain the intellectual property of their respective authors: Pia Eriksson, Alexandra Geisler, Terje Halvorsen, Lena Jauch, Emil Korzeniewski, Minna Niemi, Madalena Sofia Oliveira, Carlos Silva Peixoto, Alexandra Petrů, Andrea Rácz, Faustino Rizzio and Marco Wille Represented in this volume: Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland & Portugal List of Authors Eriksson, Pia Pia K. Eriksson is an associate professor in social work at the University of Helsinki and senior researcher at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Dr. Eriksson has extensive experience in the field of child welfare as a researcher, expert and social worker. Her research interests are related to out-of-home care: the organization and delivery of services, professional practices, and the experiences of children. Her current research focuses on the effectiveness of residential care, restrictive practices and the wellbeing of children in care. Contact: Pia Eriksson, P.O. Box 54, FI-00014 University of Finland, Finland, [email protected] Geisler, Alexandra Alexandra Geisler is Professor of Applied Social Pedagogy at the University of Applied Sciences Dresden (FHD). She studied Social Work at the University of Siegen and earned her M.A. in International Social Work and Human Rights in Berlin. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Humboldt University Berlin with a dissertation on human trafficking and racialization of Rroma women. Her professional work and research focusses on marginalization, structural violence, sexualized violence, and participatory social work research. Contact: Prof. Dr. Alexandra Geisler, www.alexandra-geisler.de, Email: [email protected] Halvorsen, Terje Terje Halvorsen is a professor in child welfare at the Department of Social work at NTNU (Norwegian University for Science and Technology). As a researcher he has worked on topics in social pedagogy, philosophy of education, developmental psychology, and residential care. Contact: Professor Terje Halvorsen, Institute of Social Work, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Box 8900, Torgarden, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] Jauch, Lena Bachelor and Master Degree in Social Work. Worked in homeless assistance, in a crisis facility for young adults and in Berlin Youth Emergency Service focusing on counseling, taking into custody and placement of minors. Has been working in the Berlin coordination office since 2018 focusing on the development of flexible support settings for children and young people with complex support needs. Completed further training as a trauma-focused specialist counselor. Korzeniewski, Emil Emil Korzeniewski, M.A. – Assistant at the Department of Theory of Education and Pedagogy of Care, University of Gdańsk. His doctoral research focuses on the conceptual foundations of care, nurturing, relationship, and education within the practice of caregiving and educational work in residential childcare institutions. He has professional experience in the foster care system. Currently, in addition to his academic work, he practices as a psychotherapist at the Centrum Pomocy Dzieciom of the Empowering Children Foundation (FDDS) – an institution operating according to the Barnahus and Children’s Advocacy Centre models. Contact: Emil Korzeniewski, University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Pedagogy, Department of Theory of Education and Pedagogy of Care, ul. Bażyńskiego 8, 80-309 Gdańsk, Poland, email: [email protected] Niemi, Minna Minna Niemi is a senior researcher at the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Her expertise in child protection services and inter-agency collaboration is grounded in professional experience as a researcher, developer, educator, and practitioner in social work. Currently, she focuses on research related to out-of-home care in child protection. Her interests include foster family care, residential care, the child protection service system, and the child’s position in care proceedings. Contact: Minna Niemi, P.O. Box 30, FI00271 Helsinki, Finland, minna.[email protected] Oliveira, Madalena Sofia PhD in Psychology, MSc in Forensic Science and Degree in Social Work. Assistant Professor at the Higher Institute of Social Work in Porto and Guest Assistant Professor at the University Institute of Health Sciences-CESPU and the University of Maia. Director of the Master Degree in Social Intervention in Childhood and Youth at Risk of Social Exclusion at the Higher Institute of Social Work in Porto. Researcher at the Centre for Research in Justice and Governance - JusGov - University of Minho, having devoted the last two decades to the study of violence in intimate relationships, intergenerational transmission of violence, child abuse and neglect, and new types of victimisation/aggression, resulting in over a hundred presentations at national and international conferences and publications in journals, chapters, and books in the field of abuse, violence, and crime. Contact: madalena.olive[email protected] Peixoto, Carlos Silva Post-graduate in clinical and forensic psychology. Diverse professional background, focusing on human rights, mental health, families, children and youth. Working for the National Commission for the Promotion of the Rights and Protection of Children and Young People, Porto Higher Institute of Social Service and Non-governmental Organizations. Member of the Research Center for Social Service Sciences. Researcher, especially in the areas of children’s rights and protection, with several publications. Contact: Peixoto, C. S., Instituto Superior de Serviço Social do Porto, Av. Dr. Manuel Teixeira Ruela, 370 - 4460-362 Sra. da Hora Portugal, carlos.peix[email protected]t Petrů, Alexandra Mgr. Alexandra Petrů, PhD., works at the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem. Her main professional interests include school social work, supervision, and crisis intervention. She earned her Ph.D. in Applied Economics and Administration from Jan Evangelista Purkyně University and a Master’s degree in Supervision and Management in Social and Health Organizations from Charles University. She has experience in crisis intervention, social work, and education. Currently, she directs the UJEP Social Clinic and provides supervision in social work, justice, and education. Contact: Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected] Rácz, Andrea Andrea Rácz is an associate professor with habilitation of the Department of Social Work at the Faculty of Social Sciences of Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary. She acquired her MA in sociology at Eötvös Loránd University and holds a PhD in sociology. Her main research field is child welfare and protection. She has published several research articles and books, which primarily deal with social exclusion, child welfare, and child and youth protection. In recent years, in addition to her teaching and research work, she has led several child protection projects. Contact: Andrea Rácz, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, 1117, Pázmány Péter sétány 1/a. [email protected] Rizzio, Faustino Faustino Rizzo, Ph.D. in Reggio Childhood Studies, is a Research Fellow at the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padua. His research focuses on family education, childhood vulnerability, and the promotion of children’s rights within justice and welfare systems. He collaborates with the national P.I.P.P.I. program and international research group. Contact: Faustino Rizzio, University of Padua, Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), Via Beato Pellegrino 28, 35137 Padova (Italy). Email: [email protected] Wille, Marco Marco Wille is a qualified social worker (BA) with a master’s degree in social work as a human rights profession (MSW). He currently manages a small residential facility providing supported independent living for young people who have intensive support needs, often stemming from trauma or psychological challenges in Germany. His practice is rooted in a human rights-based approach, focusing on fostering resilience and promoting selfdetermination for those under his care. Contact: [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction Germany ““System Crashers“ and Complex Support Needs: Structures, Challenges, and Professional Perspectives in the German Child and Youth Welfare System” Alexandra Geisler, Lena Jauch & Marco Wille Finland “Trends and Shortcomings of the Finnish Child Welfare System in Meeting Adolescents’ Needs in Complex Situations: Current Challenges and Future Directions” Minna Niemi & Pia Eriksson Hungary “The Situation of Child Protection from the Perspective of Children, Young People and Professionals in Hungary” Andrea Rácz Poland “Child Protection Standards (SOD) in Poland: Between Legal Necessity and Everyday Challenges” Emil Korzeniewski 8 18 41 61 80 Portugal “Home Care in Portugal: Perspectives and Challenges” Carlos Silva Peixoto & Madalena Sofia Oliveira Italy “Learning to “Be No One”: Freedom, Responsibility, and Residential Care in the Italian Juvenile Justice System” Faustino Rizzio Czech Republic “From Challenging Youth to Systemic Shortcomings – Rethinking Residential Care for a Different Path” Alexandra Petrů Norway “Eclecticism in Residential Childcare” Terje Halvorsen Summary & Prospects 92 117 132 152 173 Introduction Child and youth welfare systems across Europe reflect a diverse array of legal traditions, institutional structures, and professional practices. While united by the shared commitment to children’s rights and the protection of vulnerable young people, each country faces distinctive challenges shaped by history, politics, and social change. This volume, Contemporary Perspectives on Child and Youth Welfare from Different European Countries, brings together contributions from researchers and practitioners to provide a comparative lens on current debates, shortcomings, and innovations in the field. The chapters cover eight European contexts: Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland and Portugal. Together, they illustrate both the diversity and convergence of welfare practices. This publication brings together comparative insights from these eight European countries to examine how different welfare regimes diagnose, label, and respond to young people with complex support needs. While the national frameworks differ historically, legally and financially, all contributions highlight similar tensions: between care and control, participation and coercion, individual responsibility and structural failure. This publication therefore does not aim to offer a universal definition or intervention model. Instead, it provides a multi-perspective analytical overview of discourses, practices, and challenges, offering a basis for transnational reflection, professional exchange, and policy re-orientation. By presenting these perspectives side by side, the volume not only maps the complexity of European child and youth welfare but also underscores recurring themes: the tension between prevention and reaction, the balance between control and rehabilitation, and the central role of participation and rights in shaping effective systems. The following chapters were written by experts with situated knowledge of their national contexts. Each contribution discusses the socio-historical background of the child and youth welfare system, the current “Zeitgeist” shaping professional and political debates, the theoretical and methodological foundations of the authors’ analysis, and the implications for future policy and practice. Together, the texts make visible the systemic patterns behind individual biographies — and call for a re-imagining of child and youth welfare that is relational, rights-based, and structurally informed rather than reactive, punitive, or deficitoriented. 8 Germany In their article ““System Crashers“ and Complex Support Needs: Structures, Challenges, and Professional Perspectives in the German Child and Youth Welfare System,” Alexandra Geisler, Lena Jauch, and Marco Wille analyze the legal foundations, structures, and current challenges of child and youth welfare in Germany, with particular attention to systemic pressures, the role of independent providers, and innovative responses to so-called “system crasher” cases. Background: The German child and youth welfare system (Kinderund Jugendhilfe) is grounded in the Basic Law (Art. 6 GG), which establishes parental rights alongside the state’s duty to supervise and intervene if children’s well-being is endangered. The guiding principle is subsidiarity (§ 4 SGB VIII): municipalities (Youth Welfare Offices) hold legal responsibility, but services are predominantly delivered by independent providers, many of them affiliated with church or welfare associations. This structure ensures plurality, parental choice, and participation through the legally mandated help plan process (Hilfeplanung). Key provisions of SGB VIII include:  Duty to protect in cases of child endangerment, including court-enforced measures if necessary.  Educational assistance (Hilfen zur Erziehung): a spectrum of interventions from counseling and family support to foster care, residential placements, and intensive individual support.  Taking into custody (Inobhutnahme): emergency intervention, which children themselves may also initiate. Current challenges include financial austerity, workforce shortages, and increasing pressure on providers to demonstrate cost-effectiveness. This trend risks commercialization, with cheaper services prioritized over quality, leading to larger groups, less-qualified staff, and reduced continuity. Particularly vulnerable are so-called “system crasher”: children and youth with complex needs who do not fit standardized structures and often experience multiple placement breakdowns. Innovative responses have emerged, such as the Berlin and Hamburg Coordination Offices and projects in Lower Saxony and North Rhine-Westphalia. These initiatives stress interdisciplinary cooperation, individualized support, and interpretive diagnostics that reframe challenging behaviors as biographically understandable coping strategies. Evaluation results show these models can stabilize trajectories and prevent exclusion. 9 Norway The article “Eclecticism in Residential Childcare” by Terje Halvorsen critically examines the role of professional theories and evidence-based approaches in Norwegian residential child welfare, arguing for a pluralistic and flexible practice that responds to the diverse needs of children in care. Background: The Norwegian child welfare system (Barnevernet) serves approximately 44,000 children annually, with foster care as the primary measure and around 1,000 young people in residential care homes. Historically, Norwegian child welfare professionals operated with significant autonomy, drawing on diverse theoretical traditions. Since the late 1990s, however, policymakers and scholars have pushed for evidence-based practice (EBP), inspired by medicine and psychology, emphasizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as the “gold standard.” Objectives and Theoretical Base: The article critically examines the role of professional theories in residential childcare and the attempt to establish an evidence-based, standardized approach. Halvorsen reviews theories spanning psychoanalysis, attachment theory, behaviorism, social pedagogy, constructivism, resilience, empowerment, environmental psychology, and more. He situates these within broader debates on methodology, epistemology, and philosophical anthropology. Methods: The analysis draws on historical and contemporary professional theories, as well as observation of Norwegian academic debates through textbooks, articles, conferences, and seminars. Findings: Despite extensive research, no single method or multimodal program has shown decisive impact on the majority of children in residential care. Evidence often consists of weak statistical correlations that should not be overgeneralized. The failure to identify a universally effective model challenges the evidence-based movement’s quest for a singular “ultimate approach.” Implications: Halvorsen argues for eclecticism as the most viable professional stance in residential childcare. Given the diversity of children’s needs, cultural backgrounds, and life experiences, professionals should flexibly combine insights from multiple theories, tailoring support to each child. Eclecticism acknowledges both the strengths and limitations of theories while maintaining openness to revision as new knowledge emerges. Conclusion: Instead of searching for one standardized, evidence-based method, residential childcare should embrace a pluralistic and eclectic approach. This requires professionals to cultivate broad theoretical knowledge, reflective practice, and ethical awareness, enabling them to provide holistic and individualized care. 16 Concluding Synthesis and Outlook Across the eight country contributions, a set of shared structural patterns becomes visible, despite significant differences in welfare regimes, legal frameworks, and political culture. Children and young people who are categorised as having “complex support needs” do not constitute a homogeneous group, yet their trajectories reveal recurring systemic mechanisms: fragmented responsibilities, time-limited interventions, escalating placement chains, and the tendency to interpret institutional breakdowns as individual failure. A second cross-national theme concerns the dominant interpretive frameworks applied to many young people. Across the cases, escalation is frequently medicalised, psychologised, or moralised, while its structural roots — poverty, marginalisation, trauma, racialisation, and cumulative institutional discontinuity — remain under-acknowledged. The country analyses show that the category of “complex needs” is itself produced through system interaction: young people become “unmanageable” when support conditions are unstable, adult relationships are rotated, and interprofessional coordination is the exception rather than the norm. At the level of professional practice, the chapters converge on the importance of continuity, participation, and social-pedagogical expertise. Stabilisation requires not only specialised services, but also time, trust, and a shift in professional logic from reactive case administration to relational responsibility. In several countries, however, marketisation, bureaucratisation, or risk-management reforms have moved practice in the opposite direction, reducing professional discretion and prioritising procedural compliance over meaningful engagement. Finally, the comparison highlights a broader European dilemma: child and youth welfare systems are increasingly expected to manage the social consequences of inequality, exclusion, and mental health crises, while their organisational design remains fragmented, time-bound, and crisis-driven. The eight cases demonstrate that sustainable responses to complexity cannot be built through emergency placements, diagnostic escalation, or institutional rotation, but through integrated, cross-sector, community-anchored support ecologies. The chapters that follow deepen these insights through detailed national analyses. Read together, they provide not a blueprint, but a shared orientation: complexity is not an attribute of young people, but a signal of systemic limits. Addressing it requires not only more services, but different systems — coordinated, participatory, and structurally aware — capable of holding lives in motion rather than circulating them through institutions. Alexandra Geisler & Marco Wille 17 GERMANY 18 “System Crashers“ and Complex Support Needs: Structures, Challenges, and Professional Perspectives in the German Child and Youth Welfare System Alexandra Geisler, Lena Jauch, Marco Wille Alexandra Geisler1 is Professor of Applied Social Pedagogy at the University of Applied Sciences Dresden (FHD). She studied Social Work at the University of Siegen and earned her M.A. in International Social Work and Human Rights in Berlin. She received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Humboldt University Berlin with a dissertation on human trafficking and racialization of Rroma women. Her professional work and research focusses on marginalization, structural violence, sexualized violence, and participatory social work research. Lena Jauch holds a Bachelor and Master Degree in Social Work. Worked in homeless assistance, in a crisis facility for young adults and in Berlin Youth Emergency Service focusing on counseling, taking into custody and placement of minors. Has been working in the Berlin coordination office since 2018 focusing on the development of flexible support settings for children and young people with complex support needs. Completed further training as a trauma-focused specialist counselor. Marco Wille2 is a qualified social worker (BA) with a master’s degree in social work as a human rights profession (MSW). He currently manages a small residential facility providing supported independent living for young people who have intensive support needs, often stemming from trauma or psychological challenges in Germany. His practice is rooted in a human rights-based approach, focusing on fostering resilience and promoting selfdetermination for those under his care. Keywords “system crashers”, structural violence, coordination structures, subject-logical diagnostics, institutional responsibility, prevention and stabilization, individualized support settings Abstract The article examines the structural, institutional, and professional dynamics shaping the trajectories of children and young people who are repeatedly excluded from standard child and youth welfare services in Germany and are colloquially referred to as “system crashers.” Drawing on legal frameworks, current debates, and practice-based evidence from coordination offices in Berlin and other German cities, the analysis demonstrates how 1 Contact: Prof. Dr. Alexandra Geisler, www.alexandra-geisler.de, Email: [email protected] 2 Contact: marco[email protected] 19 repeated placement breakdowns, diagnostic blind spots, austerity pressures, and fragmented inter-agency cooperation co-produce the very complexity that later renders these young people “unplaceable.” Rather than attributing failure to individual behaviour or pathology, the article mobilizes subject-logical diagnostics and lifeworld-oriented social work to foreground structural mechanisms of exclusion and to reposition young people as rights-bearing subjects rather than objects of intervention. The discussion is enriched through practitioner perspectives that reveal the tensions between professional ethics, institutional logic, and cost-driven decision-making. The paper argues for a systemic paradigm shift toward early, preventive, flexible, and relationally grounded support structures, coordinated across sectors and co-created with young people themselves. It concludes that sustainable responses to complex support needs require not only legal reform and funding security but also a renewed professional self-understanding of social work as an advocacy-oriented, participatory, and reflexive practice. The German Child and Youth Welfare System Germany's “Basic Law” (Grundgesetz) enshrines the natural right of parents to care for and raise their children, while also stating that the state has a supervisory role in this process (cf. Article 6, Grundgesetz 2025). This establishes a dual responsibility between parents and the state to ensure the well-being of children. If parents are unable to meet this responsibility and require support, the state is obligated to provide assistance. The fundamental principle is that state-initiated measures must always be as non-intrusive as possible, aiming to maintain and strengthen the parent-child relationship. Intervention in the family system, such as placing a child outside the home, should only occur if the child’s welfare is otherwise at risk. A key principle of the German youth welfare system is the principle of subsidiarity (cf. § 4 Sozialgesetzbuch VIII 2025). This legal framework clearly defines a collaborative partnership between the state, and non-state service providers. Public responsibility for providing this assistance lies with the districts and cities, which are obligated to each establish Youth Welfare Offices. Alongside these public bodies are the independent providers, which are non-state organizations, typically structured as welfare associations or private companies. These independent providers offer youth welfare services, and the Youth Welfare Offices are legally required to prioritize using their services. Public bodies can (and must) only provide these services themselves if no suitable independent providers are available, which is rare. Thus, the state promotes independent providers rather than competing with them. Youth Welfare Offices are responsible for supervising independent providers to ensure they carry out their duties professionally and within the legal framework. 20 An important unique feature in Germany is that a large portion of independent providers are organized within the welfare associations of the Catholic and Protestant churches (Caritas and Diakonie) and are therefore also ideologically shaped. Many training institutes for social workers, educators, and similar professions are also run by the church. The thirdlargest welfare association is the Paritätische Verband, which is deliberately nonideological. Other associations are affiliated with political parties, such as the Arbeiterwohlfahrtsverband (AWO), which is close to the Social Democratic Party of Germany. In practice, a Youth Welfare Office first determines a specific need for assistance (e.g., parental counseling) and then seeks out suitable independent providers to deliver that assistance (e.g., counseling sessions). The Youth Welfare Office pays the providers a fixed rate for their services and monitors the progress of the assistance (including whether it is still necessary) through regular reports. Typically, a region has multiple providers for a specific type of service, which may also differ in their conceptual approaches. Recipients of assistance—the children and/or their legal guardians—are guaranteed the right to choose (cf. § 5 Sozialgesetzbuch VIII 2025). Youth Welfare Offices must respect this right. As long as the preferred facility has capacity and is professionally suitable, the Youth Welfare Office must contract with them to provide the service. As the right to choose demonstrates, participation of the recipients plays a crucial role. Another element is the help plan (Hilfeplanung), in which the Youth Welfare Office, the independent provider, and the recipients meet regularly to discuss and set goals for a specified period, usually at least every six months. The law also stipulates that children must be heard and involved in the process, in a manner appropriate to their developmental stage (cf. § 8 Sozialgesetzbuch VIII 2025). Legal Basis and Key Provisions The legal basis for youth welfare is the Eighth Book of the German Social Code (cf. Sozialgesetzbuch VIII). Its foundational principles were established as early as 1921. After the Nazi regime, the law was fundamentally reformed to include, for example, a child's right to be "educated to physical, emotional, and social competence." Following reunification in 1990, the Child and Youth Services Act (Kinderund Jugendhilfegesetz) replaced the different laws previously in force in East and West Germany with the new SGB VIII, which has since been reformed multiple times (cf. BGBl. I 1990). The most recent reform in 2021 decided that the previously separate responsibilities for children with and without disabilities will be fully integrated into SGB VIII and the jurisdiction of the Youth Welfare Offices by 2028 (cf. Beckmann/Lohse 2022). The most important legal provisions for this article are the duty to protect a child’s welfare in case of endangerment, educational assistance, and taking a child into custody. 21  Duty to Protect: As soon as a Youth Welfare Office becomes aware that a child's welfare is at risk, it is obligated to intervene and provide a remedy. The child and their legal guardians must be involved. If necessary, protection can be enforced through a court order, without the consent of the legal guardians.  Educational Assistance (Hilfen zur Erziehung): This refers to various measures that children or legal guardians are entitled to. The assistance provided is tailored to the child’s educational needs and can be combined. Examples include: parental counseling, social group work, family support services, day groups, foster care (placement with another family instead of a residential home), residential care and other supervised living arrangements, and intensive social-educational individual support.  Taking into Custody (Inobhutnahme): This is the provisional placement of children and young people in emergency situations by the Youth Welfare Office. It gives the office the authority to place the child in a suitable facility and, for this purpose, to remove them from other people. Children can also initiate this measure themselves, even against their parents' will. Current Challenges A current challenge is the issue of funding. Policymakers are mandating austerity measures, and the allocation of funds, particularly in the social sector, is increasingly being questioned. In recent years, there has also been a growing shortage of skilled workers. The youth welfare system is under pressure to justify its services, as assistance is often longterm and perceived as "expensive". The original principle of a collaborative partnership between Youth Welfare Offices and independent providers is fading. Youth Welfare Offices are increasingly acting as commissioners and monitoring bodies, while providers and recipients are burdened with demonstrating why help is even necessary. Overall, this is leading to a growing commercialization of the entire system. Facilities that can offer services at a lower cost have a better chance of being hired and utilized. As a result, the question of economic efficiency is becoming central for both public and independent providers, and in the worst cases, it overshadows the question of what constitutes the best possible assistance. Since personnel costs are generally the largest part of the expenses, this is also a major area for potential savings. As a result, there is a tendency to, for example, employ less-qualified staff, increase group sizes, or raise the caseload volume. The youth welfare system faces significant challenges, regardless the comprehensive legal framework and the institutionalized cooperation between public and independent providers. Despite these challenges there are also professional discussions and model projects on how to work with young people who are barely reached by the current system because their behaviour overwhelms regular services and facilities—these young people are known as „system crasher“. It is in this context that the discourse on young people with complex needs has emerged, describing young people whose needs and 22 behaviors exceed the system’s established capacities and reveal its structural vulnerabilities. „System crasher“ in Germany: History, Challenges, and Perspectives of Coordination Work The term „system crasher“ is neither an official legal nor medical designation. Instead, it has emerged from public and professional discourse to describe children and adolescents characterized by high escalation potential, unstable trajectories of support, and incompatibility with conventional welfare structures. These young people are often subject to multiple burdens, experience exclusion across different societal domains, and undergo recurrent crises and breakdowns of support. In response to the increasing number of socalled „system crasher“, various innovative approaches have been developed in Germany, such as the Berlin Coordination Office for the Development of Flexible Support Settings, whose structure and impact have been documented in a comprehensive evaluation report (Wunsch & Bergschmidt, 2022). The expression „system crasher“ became widely known through the 2019 feature film of the same name. It refers to children and adolescents who exhibit extremely challenging behavior, highly complex needs, and frequent breakdowns in care arrangements. From a professional perspective, the concept is controversial, as it risks individualizing problems that are often rooted in systemic deficiencies (Baumann, 2019). Even before gaining media attention, several practice-oriented projects in Germany had already focused on this target group—though usually under different designations, such as “highly burdened adolescents,” “young people with particularly challenging behavior,” or “incompatible trajectories of support.” One of the first systematic approaches was the “Grenzgänger” project in Lower Saxony, which sought to strengthen cooperation between child and youth services and child and adolescent psychiatry. Through joint case conferences, clearer diagnostics, and improved planning, the project aimed to stabilize trajectories (Groen & Jörns-Presentati, 2018). Similarly, the association of Braunschweig/Wolfenbüttel/Salzgitter established a collaborative model among six child and youth welfare providers. In 2011, this collaboration led to a first performance agreement with a local youth welfare office, later joined by others in the region. The initiative aimed to develop individualized solutions beyond traditional youth welfare formats (DVJJ, 2015). Another example is the Hamburg Coordination Office for Individualized Support. According to Peter it’s guiding principle is the case-specific integration of different service systems so that resources, expertise, and knowledge are pooled and applied collectively. This involves the coordinated inclusion of youth services, schools, psychiatry, and health care in order to design flexible, tailored solutions together with welfare providers (Peters, 2020). 23 In North Rhine-Westphalia, similar projects have emerged, such as the Dortmund Coordination Office for „system crasher“ (KoSyDo). Modeled on successful concepts from Hamburg and Berlin, KoSyDo brings together all relevant stakeholders. For each case, a specialized team of professionals is assembled, closely oriented to the individual needs of the young person (Newsroom: Dortmund aktuell, 2024). These projects share a central understanding: the causes of escalating trajectories do not primarily lie in the “maladaptation” of young people but in structural deficiencies of the support systems. This logic also informed the Berlin model project “Coordination Office for the Development of Flexible Support Settings” (Wunsch & Bergschmidt, 2022), which exemplifies a paradigm shift—from attributing deficits to adopting an interpretive, cooperative planning of support. The Berlin Coordination Office was launched in 2018 as a result of an initiative called “Alliance for the Difficult,” aimed at assuming institutional responsibility for highly challenging youth welfare cases (Wunsch & Bergschmidt, 2022). Its guiding principle is: “Failure is allowed—giving up is not.” The approach is based on structured methods, including interdisciplinary intake meetings and temporary teams (“temporary-team”) that accompany the coordination process over extended periods. Methodologically, the work draws on Baumann’s (2019) concept of subject-logical diagnostics, which interprets problematic behavior as biographically understandable coping strategies. Evaluation findings underscore the project’s effectiveness: the Berlin Coordination Office has contributed to breaking cycles of breakdowns and stabilizing trajectories (Wunsch & Bergschmidt, 2022). In almost all documented cases, the office became involved after trajectories had escalated and they have been asked to support by local youth welfare offices. The goal of the intervention is to reduce the likelihood of affected young people to fall out of the youth welfare system—with risks such as homelessness, long-term psychiatric placement, or incarceration. The Berlin initiative illustrates that even highly complex trajectories can be addressed constructively through consistent interpretive, participatory, and multi-professional approaches. However, the practice also reveals the limitations of a system that too often reacts only to escalation rather than acting preventively. While scholarly debates and model projects provide important insights into the phenomenon of „system crasher“, the perspectives of practitioners offer an indispensable complement. Lived experiences from the field illustrate how systemic shortcomings translate into everyday practice and shape the trajectories of affected young people. The following interview with Lena Jauch, an experienced social worker at the Berlin Coordination Office, provides such a perspective, highlighting both the dilemmas and the possibilities inherent in current practice. 24 How Cases and Assignments Emerge in the Child and Youth Welfare System Lena Jauch: When we talk about so-called “complex cases,” I often think it’s not the young people themselves who are so exceptional, but rather that they simply don’t fit into the existing structures. I recall many situations where a child or adolescent showed early signs—whether in kindergarten, primary school, or at the time of school enrollment—yet no one broadened their perspective. Standard measures are applied because they are available, not because they are suitable. When a young person does not fit into the support system, it is often interpreted as an individual problem. In reality, it is very often a systemic failure. There was a lack of attention, timely support was missing, or there was no possibility to implement flexible, needs-based forms of assistance. And this is precisely what produces the so-called “complex cases” we face years later. Placement breakdowns, multiple institutions, repeated crisis interventions—these did not just happen without a reason. Marco Wille: And what makes it even harder: once a certain threshold has been crossed, it becomes incredibly difficult to turn things around. I’m thinking of cases where ten or fifteen interventions have already failed. The young people come to see themselves as “unsustainable,” and the professionals involved see it that way too. This perspective becomes entrenched. Yet it would be so important to look closely at where the ruptures occurred, what was overlooked, and how a genuine new beginning could be created. Alexandra Geisler: What we see here is the effect of institutional mechanisms. When the system no longer knows what to do, responsibility is externalized—blame is placed on parents, on providers, or on the child themselves. But ultimately, this reveals a structural lack of responsibility. No one feels accountable anymore; everyone withdraws. And this is how children become “complex cases.” Multiple Placements Lena Jauch: Let me start with a concrete case. A boy, let’s call him Jonas, entered the youth welfare system at age six. Initially, his needs were straightforward: stability, reliable caregivers, and therapeutic support to process neglect and early trauma. But instead of continuity, Jonas experienced twelve different placements over eight years. Each time a placement broke down, he became more distrustful. By the age of fourteen, he had already been labeled 'unplaceable'. What strikes me is that Jonas’s complexity was not inherent— part of it is produced by the system itself. Alexandra Geisler: So Jonas didn’t start as a so-called complex case, but the multiple disruptions created the very difficulties that later made him 'difficult to place'? Lena Jauch: Exactly. Each new failure reinforced his fear of abandonment. Professionals then described him as resistant and oppositional, ignoring that his behavior was a logical response to instability. This is a prime example of how cases are constructed in our system. 25 Creating specialized settings Alexandra Geisler: We've spent a lot of time on preparation and understanding the case. The task of the „temporary-team“ is to create very individual and flexible support settings; what can we imagine such a setting to be like? Lena Jauch: I think what is most often requested, or what is most often the need that comes out of the case discussions, is actually not a group setting. A lot of the cases that land with us are ones where you can see that they can't handle a group, or the group can't handle them. There are also many who long for a group, and after 20 attempts in groups, you just have to realize that it unfortunately doesn't work. A typical setting that we "create" very often is "flexible housing", so a supported housing apartment, designed for two people, with at least two rooms, where one young person is housed, but there is always staff there at night as well. So, supported housing with 24/7 care, sometimes 24/7 with a 2:1 ratio (two professionals for one young person), sometimes also with unattended times. For this target group, we have never considered it useful for it to be family-like, meaning the same person always stays overnight there—it really has to be on a shift basis. The behaviour is often so challenging for the professionals that you have to leave after one night to clear your head. Then there are sometimes also settings for the transition, for example, where three youth crisis facilities alternate every two weeks because it's so challenging that it only works if everyone has a few weeks off in between. Marco Wille: Four years ago the law was finally clarified that support measures can be combined. It used to be often said that this wasn't possible – actually it still is: Either residential or non-residential, for example, but never both at a time. Lena Jauch: We always have that. It's not really a special setting, but it's still often difficult for the youth welfare offices: we almost always have a long-term non-residential individual case support (in addition to the residential placements), which shouldn't be ended when a residential setting is added or changes. We see it again and again in the case histories that non-residential settings are started and ended four or five times in a row. That's why my plea is really: just leave the non-residential support in there! These kids simply have no one in their family, have no constant caregivers, so why take them away again after six months just when things are going a little bit well? Austerity in the youth welfare system Alexandra Geisler: We see that quite often. As soon as something is working just fine a decision is made to end it. It works, all aims are achieved? Well then no more help is needed. It’s expensive – no one seems to think about the long term if they can cut costs right now. Lena Jauch: A prejudice that exists in many districts is: if the coordination office comes, it will always get more expensive, so we won't even ask. But that's not actually because of 32 the coordination office, but because of the pedagogical need. If that need is taken seriously, it costs money. If you don't know about it, and in the worst case, don't even grant any support, it costs nothing—to put it bluntly. But we're seeing exactly these kinds of movements much more often now, due to the very strong cost pressure in the offices. Sometimes the youth welfare office pays a higher daily rate so that a facility can use more staff in the care, or three places are paid for so that in the group of five, only two places are occupied and the young person can be there at all. Then two places are kept vacant so that one child can exist there. That's really tough, also because such places are very scarce. The providers we work with, who get many of these requests, report that they often have several such requests from youth welfare offices per week. The case workers are desperately looking for such places, but the quality management, says they are far too expensive. There's a real dissonance between demand and what is ultimately granted. Such individual settings are of course very expensive. Alexandra Geisler: That's very interesting, because when I started in social work 30 years ago, there were many more such individual settings, and they have successively disappeared. But that was also the beginning of the 2000s, there was already a lot of pressure to save money back then. And then it just kept going. It's not like we didn't have a tradition there and didn't have expertise. A lot of these flexible support settings were cut. I remember when I started here in Berlin, with homeless young people, in a drop-in centre, how many settings we still had: flexible supported housing, single housing, bed without conditions. Those are exactly the ones you are creating again now. Lena Jauch: What's striking in Berlin is that there are hundreds of providers, but the providers who are the only ones willing to create such individual settings can be counted on one hand. Marco Wille: But in Berlin, there is also no housing capacity for such individual settings. There are only a few apartments that are even suitable. Many providers have apartments in multi-family buildings, where consideration must also be given to the neighbours and their own rental contracts. Then there are also the teams, who have to agree and be willing to care for such cases. That also has a lot to do with fear. What happens if we bring someone in now who, for example, is a repeat offender. It doesn't even have to be a complex case. Lena Jauch: This also applies to one-on-one care with some adolescents, where you read in the file that there have been many assaults against caregivers. Then you're sitting in the youth welfare office and the provider says, we offer this, but only 2-to-1, and the youth welfare office says, 2-to-1? Are you crazy? The pressure on the providers is also incredibly high. 33 The Profession of Social Work and It’s Practicioners Lena Jauch: For me, professional attitude is the be-all and end-all of our work. It’s not about whether someone is particularly skilled—that’s a prerequisite. What matters beyond that is: can I build a relationship? Am I willing to engage, even when it becomes difficult? Do I see the young person in their entirety, or only through the lens of a diagnosis? I have seen many professionals who, at some point, resigned inwardly—not because they wanted to do poor work, but because they no longer had structural backing. They were left alone with complexity. What we need are spaces to reflect on our stance, share experiences, and strengthen one another. Marco Wille: Yes, and those spaces are often missing. Supervision is treated as a luxury, when in fact it is a lifeline. We expect professionals to deliver peak performance every day—without emotional relief, without genuine team development. That cannot work. Alexandra Geisler: Ultimately, it’s also about how we understand social work: as the craft of building relationships, as reflexive practice, and as professional intervention. We need to articulate this more clearly—in training, within organizations, and in the public sphere. Professional Self-Understanding Lena Jauch: When we speak of the profession of social work, I often notice how fragmented the self-understanding still is. Many colleagues see themselves as case managers, administrators, or even controllers of youth behavior, rather than as advocates for children’s rights. This narrow self-image has consequences. If social work reduces itself to managing files, monitoring compliance, or ticking boxes, it loses sight of its professional mandate: enabling participation, empowerment, and protection of young people in vulnerable situations. Alexandra Geisler: So you’re saying the problem is not only structural but also rooted in how professionals perceive their own role? Lena Jauch: Yes. The profession carries an ethical core—respect for dignity, recognition of rights, and commitment to social justice. But under pressure from bureaucratic systems, professionals often act more as agents of control than as advocates. Take for example a youth welfare office case conference: decisions are often driven by cost considerations and institutional availability, rather than by the actual needs of the young person. In that moment, social workers risk becoming administrators of scarcity rather than professionals striving for the best solution. Marco Wille: That resonates with what I see in practice: the clash between professional ethos and institutional logic. The system demands efficiency, measurability, and documentation. But the essence of social work is relational, dialogical, and often not immediately measurable. 34 Strains in Practice Lena Jauch: Let me give you a concrete example. A colleague working in residential care told me about a teenager who had already gone through twelve placements. Every breakdown was carefully documented, but the reports contained little reflection on what the institutions could have done differently. Instead, the focus was always on the young person’s deficits. The professional became a scribe of failure rather than an advocate for change. This shows how easily the professional role can be reduced to paperwork. Alexandra Geisler: And this is linked to working conditions, isn’t it? High caseloads, lack of supervision, constant staff turnover—under those conditions, it is difficult to maintain a professional identity that goes beyond administration. Lena Jauch: Exactly. Social work is emotionally demanding. Without adequate support structures—such as regular supervision, manageable caseloads, and organizational backing—professionals burn out. When that happens, they retreat into defensive practices: documenting risks, covering their backs, and avoiding responsibility. In that climate, true professional action, oriented toward participation and empowerment, becomes almost impossible. Power and Powerlessness Marco Wille: I think it’s also important to talk about power. Social workers have power over children and families—through assessments, reports, and recommendations that shape their lives. But at the same time, they are powerless within the structures that dictate what resources are available. How do you see this paradox? Lena Jauch: That’s a crucial point. Social work operates in a double bind: powerful toward clients, powerless toward the system. For instance, a social worker may recommend intensive therapeutic support for a young person, but if the funding is denied, they have no authority to enforce it. The family perceives them as all-powerful, while the professional experiences themselves as powerless. This tension leads to frustration and disillusionment. Alexandra Geisler: So the profession risks losing credibility both with clients and with institutions. Clients feel controlled rather than supported, while institutions view social workers as cost drivers. Lena Jauch: Exactly. And this is where the question of professional identity comes in. If we understand ourselves as advocates for rights and participation, we can resist being reduced to administrators. But this requires courage, reflection, and collective professional discourse. Theoretical Elaboration: Professionalization Marco Wille: How do you see the debate on professionalization in social work? Do you think the field has reached a level of maturity comparable to medicine or law? 35 Lena Jauch: We’re not there yet. Medicine and law have established monopolies of expertise and societal recognition. Social work still struggles to assert its autonomy. Often, external actors—politicians, administrators, even the media—define what social work should do. This weakens professional authority. A stronger orientation toward theory, ethics, and evidence could strengthen our standing. Alexandra Geisler: So you’re advocating for a professional discourse that insists on autonomy and clear boundaries of expertise? Lena Jauch: Yes. For example, only trained social workers should decide on certain interventions, just as only doctors decide on medical treatments. Otherwise, our expertise will remain undervalued. But we must also engage in public debates, showing why social work matters for society. Professional Attitude in Everyday Practice Lena Jauch: I’ll share one more case. A social worker in child protection was pressured by a supervisor to close a case quickly because of budget constraints. The family clearly needed ongoing support, but the official argument was: 'No acute danger, therefore no justification for further funding.' The social worker decided to keep visiting informally, in her own time, because she could not accept leaving the family unsupported. This demonstrates how professional ethics sometimes collide with bureaucratic logic—and how individual professionals carry the burden. Marco Wille: That’s admirable, but also dangerous. It shows both the strength of professional commitment and the vulnerability of individuals within the system. Alexandra Geisler: And it highlights why professional solidarity is so important. No one should have to shoulder such conflicts alone. The profession needs collective spaces of reflection and advocacy. Conclusion of the Thematic Cluster Lena Jauch: To conclude, I believe the profession of social work must reclaim its ethical mandate: to advocate for the rights and dignity of young people, to resist reduction to administrative roles, and to develop a stronger collective identity. Only then can we navigate the contradictions between institutional constraints and professional ideals. Alexandra Geisler: And that means strengthening training, supervision, and discourse—so that professionals can act with confidence, not only as bureaucrats but as advocates. Marco Wille: And at the same time pushing for structural reforms—better funding, recognition of expertise, and institutional support. Only then can the profession live up to its full potential. 36 Cooperation and Coordination Structures Interface Problems Lena Jauch: When we speak of cooperation structures, we have to admit that many of the so-called complex cases are actually failures of coordination. Schools, youth welfare services, psychiatry, and health care each do their own part, but rarely in concert. For the child, this means fragmented interventions and conflicting expectations. Alexandra Geisler: That resonates with what we see: one institution documents problems, another prescribes measures, a third provides temporary care—but no one connects the dots. Lena Jauch: Exactly. I remember a case of a 13-year-old girl with repeated self-harm. The school had records of absenteeism, the pediatrician noted psychosomatic complaints, and youth welfare provided temporary family assistance. But no one brought this information together. Only after a severe crisis and psychiatric admission was the extent of her trauma recognized. Marco Wille: So the problem was not lack of information, but lack of integration. Lena Jauch: Yes. We don’t have a culture of joint responsibility. Each sector documents for itself, often in incompatible systems. Instead of interdisciplinary conferences, we have parallel monologues. And the child is the one who pays the price. Case Conferences Alexandra Geisler: I have seen positive examples where case conferences were introduced. But often, they remain superficial. Everyone presents their view, but there is little genuine dialogue. Why do you think that is? Lena Jauch: Because true cooperation requires more than meetings. It requires a willingness to share responsibility and sometimes to compromise institutional interests. In practice, that’s difficult. A youth welfare office may fear additional costs, a school may worry about its reputation, psychiatry may insist on medical criteria. Without a shared goal, conferences remain ritualistic. Marco Wille: So the form exists, but the function is weak. Lena Jauch: Precisely. And that’s why model projects like the Berlin Coordination Office are so important. They show what happens when institutions commit to joint case responsibility. Success comes not from a single brilliant intervention, but from continuity and cooperation. Missing Transitions Lena Jauch: Another critical issue is transitions. Children move from kindergarten to school, from school to vocational training, from child psychiatry to adult psychiatry. Each transition 37 is a high-risk moment. Too often, there is no handover. Files get lost, therapies stop abruptly, support networks collapse. Alexandra Geisler: I recall a young man with ADHD. When he turned 18, his child psychiatry treatment stopped immediately. Adult psychiatry said: 'We don’t treat ADHD, that’s a childhood disorder.' Overnight, he was left without medication and support. Within months, he dropped out of training and became homeless. Lena Jauch: Exactly. Age limits and categorical boundaries are artificial constructs. But for young people, they determine life chances. If coordination fails, what could have been a stable transition becomes a downward spiral. Theoretical Elaboration: System Logic Marco Wille: This seems to reveal a deeper system logic: each institution secures its boundaries, defines its mandate narrowly, and avoids shared responsibility. What does that mean for cooperation? Lena Jauch: It means that without structural incentives, cooperation will remain the exception. Right now, institutions are rewarded for efficiency in their own domain, not for collaborative success. A school that manages to exclude a difficult student may appear successful internally, even if that student fails completely in life. Alexandra Geisler: So institutional logics sometimes work against the child’s interest. Lena Jauch: Yes. And that’s why we need coordination structures that transcend institutional borders. Otherwise, children are passed around like hot potatoes—too psychiatric for youth welfare, too behavioral for psychiatry, too disruptive for school. Each system claims: 'not my responsibility.' Successful Cooperation Marco Wille: So success is possible when institutions align their resources and commit to long-term cooperation. Alexandra Geisler: And that requires trust and continuity, which are rare commodities in our fragmented system. Conclusion of the Thematic Cluster Lena Jauch: To conclude, I would say: cooperation and coordination are not optional extras—they are central to the success of child and youth welfare. Without them, we produce fragmentation and exclusion. With them, even highly complex cases can stabilize. The challenge is to move from isolated projects to systemic change. Marco Wille: That means institutional incentives must change—rewarding cooperation rather than isolation. 38 Alexandra Geisler: And professionals need spaces where they can meet, reflect, and plan together. Only then will cooperation become part of everyday practice, not just a special project. Conclusion In conclusion, the analysis demonstrates a dynamic interplay between legal structures, systemic challenges, and professional practice within German youth welfare. The trajectory from the general framework of youth welfare, to the specific difficulties posed by so-called „system crasher“, and finally to the lived realities articulated by a practitioner, underscores a central paradox: while the system aspires to guarantee protection and participation, it’s very structures sometimes generate exclusion and instability. Addressing this tension requires not only legislative and organizational reform but also a cultural shift toward reflexivity, cooperation, and genuine recognition of young people as subjects of rights rather than objects of intervention. References Ackermann, C., & Robin, S. (2018). Partizipation im Jugendamt. Beltz Juventa. Baumann, M. (2012). Fallverstehen in der Jugendhilfe. Juventa. Baumann, M. (2019). Subjektlogische Diagnostik in der Jugendhilfe – Verstehen statt kategorisieren. Beltz Juventa. Beckmann, Janna/Lohse, Katharina. 2022. SGB VIII-Reform: Überblick über das Kinderund Jugendstärkungsgesetz [online]. In: Deutsches Institut für Jugendhilfe und Familienrecht e.V. [cit. 21.10.2025]. Available from: https://www.fachstelle-leavingcare.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/BeckmannLohse_ s%CC%8Cberblick_SGB-VIII-Reform_KJSG_JAmt-2021.pdf Bundesgesetzblatt. 1990 I, 1163. Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Kinderund Jugendhilferechts (Kinderund Jugendhilfegesetz - KJHG) Deutsche Vereinigung für Jugendgerichte und Jugendgerichtshilfen e.V. (DVJJ). (2015). 25. Deutsche Jugendgerichtstag. Neue Wege im Umgang mit „Systemsprengern“. [cit. 21.10.2025]. Available from: https://niedersachsen.dvjj.de/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/08/ak6_“system crasher“.pdf Groen, G., & Jörns-Presentati, A. (2021). Evaluation des Projekts Grenzgänger. Universität Ulm. Grundgesetz der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. 2025 39 Lüttringhaus, J., & Busch, B. (2017). Schnittstellen gestalten: Kinderund Jugendhilfe und Jugendpsychiatrie in der Kooperation. Beltz Juventa. Newsroom: Dortmund aktuell. (2024, November 8). Ein innovatives Projekt als Antwort auf „überforderte Systeme“. [cit. 21.10.2025]. Available from: https://www.dortmund.de/newsroom/presse-mitteilungen/jugendamt-dortmundpraesentiert-neues-konzept-zum-umgang-mit-sogenannten-%E2%80%9E“system crasher“- innen.html Peters, M. (2020). Hamburger Koordinierungsstelle: Herausforderungen und Perspektiven. Fachzeitschrift für Jugendhilfe, 3(20), 45–60. Sozialgesetzbuch VIII. 2025. Kinderund Jugendhilfe Thiersch, H. (2015). Lebensweltorientierte Soziale Arbeit (9th ed.). Juventa. Tornow, V., Nüsken, D., & Schone, R. (2012). Hilfeplanung in der Jugendhilfe. Lambertus. Wunsch, R., & Bergschmidt, V. (2022). Evaluation des Modellprojekts: Koordinierungsstelle zur Entwicklung flexibler Hilfesettings für Kinder und Jugendliche mit komplexem Hilfebedarf. Evangelische Hochschule Berlin. 40 FINLAND 41 different municipalities and facilities. The lack of regulation was one reason a new Child Welfare Act was passed in 2007. The aims were to strengthen the right of the child and to regulate the use of restrictive measures in order to strengthen the practices of the professionals working in RC. There remained a need to further regulate restrictive measures, and attempts to clarify use of them based on that law were made by legislative changes to the Child Welfare Act in 2019. Until the 1990s, RC providers were (in accordance with other social and health care) mainly municipalities, the Finnish state, or NGOs (Särkelä 2016). The privatization of RC for children and youth has been rapid compared to other social services (Särkelä 2016; Eriksson & Harrikari 2023), and the private market share is large compared to the other Nordic countries (Shanks et al. 2021). In recent years, the share of the private market has not grown as rapidly as it did in the 1990s, but the trend is for the share of for-profit large companies to become larger and small non-profit providers to disappear (Eriksson & Harrikari 2023). In 2024, 526 RC units offered care for children and youth on child welfare grounds in Finland, with approximately 20% being public and the rest private service providers (Laajasalo et al. 2025). At present, five state-run residential care units (reform schools) are based on a separate law stating that children that cannot appropriately be cared for in other units can be placed in a state-run unit with an integrated school (Act on the child welfare units under the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare 1379/2010). As child protection placements and restrictive measures are based on the Child Welfare Act, the same legislation applies to state-run, other public, and private RC units. Finland has not had locked secure institutions for children, but individual periods of “special care,” determined by social workers and lasting up to 90 days, can be imposed for children exhibiting particularly severe symptoms. During these periods, their freedom is restricted in many ways, and professional support is more intensive compared to common RC (Child Welfare Act, Sections 61–74). Instead of locked institutions, the system is built on individual assessment and the discretion of professionals when it comes to restrictions. Restrictive measures are based on specific reasons and apply only to the individual child, not to the community in which the child lives. Finnish child welfare legislation defines restrictive measures, which are: 1) restrictions in contact, 2) confiscation of substances and objects, 3) bodily search and physical examination, 4) inspection of possessions and deliveries, 5) restraining the child physically, 6) restrictions on freedom of movement, and 7) isolation and special care. Most restrictive measures require an administrative decision, which the child can appeal in administrative court (Child Welfare Act, Sections 61–74). In Finland, all child protection residential care units have equal authority regarding the use of restrictive measures, unlike in e.g. Sweden (Enell 2022). Separate regional state administrative agencies and the Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman monitor institutions, 48 including their use of restrictive measures. Restrictive measures are not permitted in foster family care, except a restriction of contact based on a decision made by a social worker. 3 Systemic Shortcomings and trends Since the death of a child in in-home child welfare services in 2012 – a case that marked the first to receive significant media and public attention – Finland has placed strong emphasis on child welfare reforms, including development projects, expert investigations, and efforts to address systemic shortcomings. An expert group report commissioned by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in response to the incident (STM 2013) marked the beginning of a new era in Finland’s child welfare system, one characterized by national development initiatives and expert-led recommendations. Attention has been paid especially to the strengthening of universal and preventive services for children, youth, and families (e.g. STM 2020; Lindberg & Yliruka 2023). In an inquiry-based reading guided by the first question (on shortcomings and developmental trends in answering to complex needs in the Finnish child protection system), we focused on solutions for adolescents facing severe and complex challenges whose needs are frequently addressed through OHC. In national policy documents and research reports outlining child welfare development needs and future directions in the aftermath of the aforementioned incident, we identified three key phenomena in efforts to meet these needs: a) foster family care as an alternative to RC, b) rehabilitation and multiprofessional collaboration, and c) increased control. 3.1 Foster Family Care as Alternative to Residential Care Since the beginning of 2012, foster family care has been explicitly defined as primary in relation to RC in the Child Welfare Act, but it is still subject to individual evaluation of each child. If a child has complex needs that cannot be met in foster family care, they are placed in RC. In RC, more restrictions are permitted than in family care, and they are often seen by practitioners as needed for adolescents with complex needs including substance abuse, mental health issues, and antisocial behaviours. As research shows that children in foster family care are generally better off on as young adults (Kääriälä & Hiilamo 2017), there has been a continuous willingness to increase the share of foster family care as an alternative to RC. The National Audit Office of Finland (2012) stated that the growth of foster family care requires increased support for the families as did the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2013), that recommended strong support for foster families a year later (STM 2013 21). Further, the supervision of foster families has been recommended to be strengthened and the legislation updated accordingly (Eriksson & Korhonen 2022, 106). 49 Strongly supported foster family care was identified as one future direction in developing alternatives to RC for adolescents in Finland in a national reform of child protection ten years ago (Eronen & Laakso 2016). Further, strongly supported and intensive foster care was suggested by, for example, Heino (2020) some years later. Regardless, following the change in law in 2012, there have been no concrete national efforts to strengthen and secure enough support for foster families to be able to care for adolescents in need of strong support. The suggestions have received attention among professionals, and some local development programmes have been initiated. 3.2 Rehabilitation and Multiprofessional Collaboration The working group appointed by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2012 (STM 2013) mainly focused on recommending changes in and strengthening in-home services for families with children. Some of the main shortcomings identified were related to a lack of communication and information-sharing between authorities and the need to strengthen multiprofessional collaboration. Furthermore, staff resources in child welfare were to be secured, which was brought into the Child Welfare Act in terms of a maximum number of clients per social worker ten years later following repeated identification of the need by another working group (STM 2020). The ethos of the child welfare legislation stressing preventive and universal (as well as targeted) in-home services has been continuous, and development of these are seen as a possibility to reduce OHC placement. One of the main challenges identified in a vision of future directions for reforming the child welfare system published by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (Hoikkala et al. 2023) was the service system being siloed and fragmented, as services are built on an organizational basis and are not flexible in meeting a user’s individual needs. The same challenges of a siloed system with deficiencies in collaboration between the social and health care sectors face children and youth in OHC. The National Audit Office of Finland (2012) identified shortcomings in child welfare services, particularly in placing children in suitable units and in accessing and coordinating specialized health care for children in care. OHC placements were, according to the audit report, covering for a lack of psychiatric care, as specialized health care referred children to OHC due to strained resources. The deficit in mental health services for these children was identified regardless of a change made to the Health Care Act to ease the situation (Ibid 2012). A multidisciplinary, national-level research group made suggestions regarding integrative organization and leadership as well as multiprofessional cooperation to ensure services for children and youth in need of both welfare and specialized mental health care services (Heino et al. 2018). 50 The National Audit Office (2012) recommended securing health care services for children in care. The same recommendation was made by researchers ten years later, as the situation had not improved. In a research report based on a large national sample, the same shortcomings in finding a place that meets the needs of demanding adolescents was found to persist, as aggressive children with acute psychiatric and substance abuse problems are especially difficult to place (Eriksson & Korhonen 2022). As the needs of the adolescents placed are not met, they are moved around, which threatens stability and continuity in their situation. In 2019, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health appointed a working group to reform child protection legislation so that the content and structure of OHC in child protection would better meet the needs of children requiring demanding special support (STM 2020). In response to deficits in the service system and in the inability of OHC to answer to the needs of the most demanding children, the working group proposed minimum staffing levels for child welfare services and the securing of multidisciplinary services for children in need of special support. The group also proposed that measures be taken to improve services for families with children, the threshold for children and young people to access mental health services be lowered, and preventive substance abuse services for minors be secured. The period of special care (so-called EHO) was proposed to be lengthened to up to 90 days to ensure rehabilitation. The only proposal that progressed into law was the staffing levels for social workers in child welfare services that were legislated and put into practice in 2022. 3.3 Increased Control The 2012 working group (STM 2013) noted that parents of children in OHC struggled to set boundaries for adolescents, and staff in RC units lacked adequate tools to manage complex situations. These issues reflect challenges in professionals’ mandate to impose restrictions when necessary. The discussion on where the line is to be drawn between regular upbringing and restrictions of human rights has been vigorous in the last decade (Heino 2020, 108). At the same time, professional voices following a change in the law (with the aim of protecting children’s rights when restrictions are used) in 2019 have called for more tools to handle children with complex needs. A 2020 working group on demanding OHC, appointed by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (STM 2020), proposed legislative clarifications following confusion among professionals caused by the previous change in the law. These proposals remain pending after a change in government. The restrictive measures are not considered by professionals working in RC units sufficient to safeguard all children in care. Also, implementation of a restriction on movement and preventing runaway behaviour, for example, are seen to pose challenges for multiprofessional role division between the RC unit, police, and specialized health care (Niemi & Eriksson 2025). 51 While the rhetoric of controlling in child welfare was until recently associated with the need to strengthen oversight and supervision of both foster families and RC units (Audit Office of Finland 2012; STM 2013; Eriksson & Korhonen 2022) in a scattered field of diverse service providers, discussion on control now has shifted to the need for more strict control of youth and their behaviour. 4 Proposed Solutions to Stated Needs for Reform in Child Protection In the following, we use the three phenomena identified in the previous phase as aframework for our inquiry-based reading (Katan & Andreas Baarts 2020) to answer the second question (i.e. on the kinds of changes being proposed for those whom OHC fails). The framework informed our reading of recent administrative and political documents (2023–2025) that outline identified needs in and proposed changes to the organization and legislation of child protection, especially in relation to adolescents. Here, we identify and outline the proposed changes by national authorities in relation to current child protection and describe the intended transformation of the original phenomena. The following documents were in focus:  the Finnish Government Programme (VN 2023),  a decision regarding a legislative reform group for child welfare legislation for minors involved in serious substance abuse, violence, and criminal activity (STM 2024),  the final report of a preparatory group for the reform of child welfare legislation concerning adolescents who suffer from severe substance abuse issues, engage in serious violence, and commit crimes (STM 2025a), and  a draft Government Proposal to Parliament for the amendment of the Child Welfare Act and related legislation (STM 2025b). 4.1 Stated Needs for Change According to our reading, the first of the stated needs driving reforms of the child welfare service system at the moment is a deficiency in professional mandates. This appears to stem, for example, from legislative gaps concerning the authority of both police and child welfare officials to apprehend children who have left RC without permission. Child protection professionals and RC units are considered to require stronger legal authority and improved operational capacity to fulfil their responsibilities effectively. RC units reportedly face serious difficulties in locating children who leave without permission, particularly in the absence of effective collaboration with police and emergency services. Furthermore, the application of certain restrictive measures – such as physical restraint and personal searches – outside RC unit or in a vehicle is difficult. Additionally, shortcomings have been identified in how child protection services justify their official requests for assistance. 52 The second need for change identified in the documents is that RC units do not always have sufficient means to ensure the balanced development and well-being of children. The documents stated that there are not enough secure care units in Finland that would enable flexible and long-term (and sufficiently strong) protection when adolescents seriously abuse substances, are extremely violent, or have committed serious crimes. They also articulate that there are no RC units in Finland from which unauthorized departure can be effectively prevented. The documents state that the special care periods (so-called EHO) currently applied in Finland are not sufficient to break some of the most serious substance abuse, violence, and/or crime cycles of children, as these periods can last a maximum of 90 days. They also assess that responding to the situations of young people with serious substance abuse symptoms urgently requires new, functional service integrations and multidisciplinary cooperation. Currently, there do not seem to be sufficient services for young people with substance abuse problems. In addition, cooperation between social and health care is stated to be ineffective for young people with substance abuse problems, and young people are too often left without health care. The documents express particular concern for adolescents with serious social challenges. The risk of marginalization among these young people, along with the widespread prevalence of mental health and anxiety issues among youth more broadly, are identified as urgent problems requiring swift and effective action. Crimes committed by adolescents increasingly involve violence, and serious offences have become more common, especially among those under the age of 15. Gang involvement is also highlighted in the Finnish government programme as a phenomenon needing prevention. The documents pay special attention to children who have absconded from RC and who are in a particularly vulnerable position. These children are frequently exposed to drug use, may become victims of sexual violence, and in some cases witness the deaths of their peers. Furthermore, experiences of violence and the constant threat of violence within child welfare institutions jeopardize children’s right to physical integrity and protection from abuse. Feelings of insecurity are also heightened by unauthorized interference with others’ property. Finally, the need for change is linked to concerns that current child welfare restrictions do not effectively prevent drug use among young people in RC. Thus, a need for reform in RC is emphasized. 4.2 Proposed Reforms in Child Protection In the documents reviewed, one proposed improvement to child protection involves measures that would enable the continuation of foster family care or placement in foster family care instead of RC. Currently, placing a child in foster family care is not always feasible. Upcoming legislative reforms aim to ensure that if a child leaves OHC without permission, their prompt return can be secured, including when the child resides in a foster family. Therefore, the legislative process will re-examine the role of foster family care, considering its specific nature. The boundary between caregiving and restrictive measures 53 would be clarified to allow for a broader set of tools to protect children in foster family care settings. It has been proposed that, for example, removal of substances or objects that contribute to harmful situations or conditions for the child could be permitted as part of boundary-setting caregiving (also applicable to foster family care). In addition to the emphasis on foster family care, the documents reflect a continued commitment to early intervention and support, diverse and multidisciplinary assistance, and a child protection service structure that prioritizes open care measures. According to the government programme, a broad national initiative will be launched to prevent youth marginalization, address mental health challenges, and reduce disparities in well-being. The approach promotes cross-sectoral cooperation and aims to improve the flow of information between authorities by removing legislative barriers that hinder collaboration. Targeted measures, such as extending periods of special care and enabling institutional care that integrates social and health services, will be implemented for young people struggling with severe substance abuse, cycles of criminal behaviour, or violent tendencies. Furthermore, the government programme proposes legislation to ensure equal access for children and adolescents to short-term psychotherapy and other effective psychosocial treatments (Health Care Act). According to the proposed changes, a minor under the age of 18 who commits serious acts of violence or other criminal offences may be placed in a new type of secure care unit to be established, if it is deemed necessary to protect the child or others from harmful behaviour and to ensure access to rehabilitative services and long-term support. Secure care units must be staffed with professionals in social welfare, health care, and child development. Health care personnel must have expertise in neuropsychiatry, psychiatry, and substance abuse treatment. A multidisciplinary team is to be responsible for the child’s care and rehabilitation, with continuous access to medical consultation. These units may impose more intensive and prolonged restrictions on freedom of movement and other fundamental rights than other forms of OHC. Placement will be based on criteria defined in child welfare legislation and does not constitute a criminal sanction. The service is intended as a lastresort measure with a strong rehabilitative focus. Increased control over youth exhibiting serious criminal and substance-related symptoms is also reflected in legislative amendments aimed particularly at protecting children under the age of 15 (those below the age of criminal responsibility) and interrupting cycles of offending. Authorities’ rights and responsibilities are to be clarified and strengthened, especially in situations where a child leaves or attempts to leave their placement without permission. Legislation will seek to enable more effective responses to unauthorized departures. A national preparatory group has proposed the establishment of specialized public authority units or teams to locate, return, and transport children who have gone missing from placements. However, these proposals have not been included in the draft 54 government bill. Additionally, the proposed measures8 aim to clarify the boundary between caregiving practices and restrictive interventions, allowing protective measures to be used in both RC and foster care settings. 5 Discussion The question of how best to support adolescents with complex challenges has been debated in Finland since preparation for the first child welfare law began over a century ago. Most systemic shortcomings repeatedly identified over the past 15 years remain unresolved despite attempts at improvement through minor legislative changes. As these issues persist, the solutions vary over time, partly due to political guidance. When comparing the currently proposed solutions to earlier ones, the phenomenon of control has gained considerable attention and space. Efforts to increase foster family care are accompanied by attempts to clarify the role of certain restrictions as a natural part of parenting within semi-professional foster care. Insufficiency of rehabilitation for adolescents in care has cumulated in suggestions to lengthen restricted special care periods and to allow a new, closed form of RC. The discussion on different types of children needing RC and the division between child protection and the criminal justice system is not new; the same themes have emerged at different points since the late 19th century. The discussion is again topical (e.g. Niemi ja Juuriala 2024). In public debate, proposals for change often revolve around increasing the capacity for restriction, as the goal appears to be reducing unwanted behaviours, such as unauthorized absences from RC by a small group of children in care. Public and political rhetoric identifies the importance of addressing severe mental health and substance abuse among children in RC, but the tangible solutions offered less so. The title of a report on state-run RC units by the social welfare board (Siltanen 1990) 35 years ago was “From punishments to rehabilitation: from seclusion to family therapy.” The report outlined in 1990 future directions that were dominant for decades. But are we now, in the 2020s, entering a new era where the pendulum swings back from softer methods to more control? It is evident that the child protection system fails some children and new solutions are needed. For many, strengthening universal and basic services, battling childhood poverty, and supporting families can be the solution. For some, intensification of multiprofessional support and accessibility and availability of mental health and substance abuse services can be the solution. For the small demanding and vulnerable group of adolescents in need 8 Examples of proposed legislative amendments (at time of writing, the proposals had not yet progressed to parliamentary or committee consideration): security screening of individuals entering RC units; use of surveillance technology in shared areas of RC units; use of metal detectors; physical restraint of a child attempting to leave the institution without permission; expansion of the right to restrain a child outside the institution; and clarification of police procedures when apprehending a child who has left the institution without authorization. 55 of strong support, secure care might be a solution. We believe that restrictions that are temporary in nature and safeguard these children both physically and emotionally can provide a secure environment where their needs can better be met. The prerequisite for success is that the content, which is the care and rehabilitation itself, gains more attention, as control itself is not a cure but an enabler. The currently proposed solution can help a minority of children by providing a secure environment, as long as the aspect of control does not take over. The rights of children and their legal protection should also never be forgotten in discussions and proposals where the aspect of control is present. Therefore, we call for a more nuanced discussion on the prerequisites and consequences of introducing a new form of closed RC for the first time in Finland. This article is based on a reading of Finnish administrative texts and research to form a picture of discussion and trends in Finland. It is not a systematic or comprehensive analysis but an inquiry-based reading by two researchers. Our own role in relation to the topic – as researchers and experts both working at a national research institute in Finland that is independent of but administered by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health – is not objective. We and our colleagues have functioned as informants and experts for and in working groups as well as the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in associated questions. The critical examination presented here is ours alone and does not represent the view of any organization. References Act on the Child Welfare Units under the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare 1379/2010. (2010). Finlex Data Bank. Ministry of Justice, Finland. Child Welfare Act 52/1936. (1936). Finlex Data Bank. Ministry of Justice, Finland. Child Welfare Act 810/1983. (1983). Finlex Data Bank. Ministry of Justice, Finland. Child Welfare Act 417/2007. (2007). Finlex Data Bank. Ministry of Justice, Finland. Child Welfare Act 1302/2014. (2014). Finlex Data Bank. Ministry of Justice, Finland. Enell, S., Andersson Vogel, M., Henriksen, A.-K. E. et al. (2022). Confinement and restrictive measures against young people in the Nordic countries: A comparative analysis of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Nordic Journal of Criminology, 23(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2022.2054536 Eriksson, P., Harrikari, T. (2023). Lastensuojelun sijaishuollon palvelutuotannon muutos 2018–2023. Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 88(5–6). https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe20231211153183 56 Eriksson, P., Korhonen, P. (2022). "Kiitos kun pidätte huolta, että asiat olisi minulla hyvin". THL Raportti 3/2022. Eronen, T., Laakso, R. (2016). Lastensuojelun laitoshoidon kasvatukselliset ja kuntouttavat orientaatiot. THL Työpaperi 44/2016. Forsell, M., & Inget-Leinonen, S. (2025). Lastensuojelu 2024. Yhä harvempi lastensuojeluilmoitus johtaa lastensuojelun asiakkuuteen. Tilastoraportti 23/2025. Hakalehto, S. (2016). Johdatus lapsen oikeuksiin lastensuojelussa. In S. Hakalehto & V. Toivonen (Eds.), Lapsen oikeudet lastensuojelussa (s. 22–57). Helsinki: Kauppakamari. Harrikari, T. (2012). Lapsuuden ongelmallistuminen. In M. Jahnukainen, T. Pösö & H. Heinonen (Eds.), Lasten erityishuolto ja kasvatus Suomessa (p. 57–92). Helsinki/Tampere: Lastensuojelun Keskusliitto & Vastapaino. Health Care Act 789/2025. (2025). Finlex Data Bank. Ministry of Justice, Finland. Hearn, J., Pösö, T., Smith, C. et al. (2004). What is child protection? Historical and methodological issues in comparative research on lastensuojelu/child protection. International Journal of Social Welfare, 13, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13696866.2004.00295.x Heino, T. (Ed.) (2020). Mikä auttaa? Tutkimusperustaiset ja käytännössä toimivat työmenetelmät teininä sijoitettujen lasten hoidossa. THL Raportti 12/2020. Heino, T., Forsell, M., Eriksson, P. et al. (2018). Lastensuojelun ja psykiatrian yhteiset asiakkaat. THL Päätösten tueksi 50/2018. Heiskanen, L. (2024). Nuorten ryöstörikosten piirteet. Helsinki: Keskusrikospoliisi. Hoikkala, S. (2020). Historiallinen tapaustutkimus lastensuojelulaitoksista. Heikki Waris - instituutin tutkimuksia 4/2020. Available: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-5616-91-0 Hoikkala, S., Muinonen, T., Palola, E. et al. (2023). Lastensuojelun kokonaisuudistuksen valmistelu. STM Raportteja ja muistioita 2023:27. Available: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/164950/STM_2023_r_27.pdf Hytönen, K.-M., Malinen, A., Salenius, P. et al. (2016). Lastensuojelun sijaishuollon epäkohdat ja lasten kaltoinkohtelu 1937–1983. STM Raportteja ja muistioita 2016:22. Available: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-00-3806-9 Hämäläinen, J. (2022). Constructing child welfare science. Paedagogica Historica, 59(6), 994–1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2021.2021958 57 and are waiting for social care institution, they can receive support until the age of 22. The number of people receiving aftercare has fallen significantly, with 2,191 people receiving it in 2020, a 30% decrease in demand over ten years14 . Research shows that the reason for this drastic decline is the disillusionment of young people, who flee the system upon reaching adulthood due to their bad experiences. It is true, however, that professionals are also happy to be rid of problematic young people who dropped out of school, have behaviour difficulties or use drugs (Szikulai, 2003; Rácz, 2012; 2014; Rubeus Egyesület, 2013, 2015; Rácz, Riegler, 2015). The disadvantage compensation function of child protection often fails, and many of the young people are transferred to another system and unfortunately become homeless. According to research data, one in five homeless people spent part or all of their childhood in public care (Győri, 2021). According to data from the 2020 homeless survey, called February 3, (sample size: 7,000), 69% of those who had been living on the streets since becoming homeless came directly from child protection, and 61% had been in public care at some point in their lives (Győri, 2021:104). The situation of those in specialist care is very unfavourable in many aspects. There is a high rate of delinquency, running away, crime, substance abuse, prostitution and human trafficking, especially among those living in children's homes (Hatvani, Sebhelyi, Vaskuti, 2018:55-58). According to experts, 80-90 percent of children raised in children's homes go astray. In contrast, this rate is 10-20 percent for children living with foster parents15. It is also worth mentioning the unjustified removal of children from their families for financial reasons, which affects every third child according to a 2017 Ombudsman investigation (Gyermekjogi Civil Koalíció, 2019:24), as well as the over-representation of children of Roma origin and the prejudices against them (Darvas et al. 2016; Rákó, 2019), which greatly hinders the successful social integration of the target group. Numerous studies have reported on their low level of education, limited social networks and, as a result, weak position in the labour market (Cseres 2005; Szikulai, 2003; Rákó, 2014; Rácz, 2012). It is important to note that foster care is of paramount importance in child protection in Hungary, although there are few foster parents, with an estimated 2,000 missing from the system due to low financial and social status16. Many foster families or their environment also have poor care conditions, as nearly 90% live in small settlements in disadvantaged regions of the country, where related public education, child health care and other services are also limited. Foster parents are overburdened, caring for an average of three foster children. (Homoki, 2024; Kothencz, Feleky, Lőrinczi, 2024). According to the results of a recent national survey of foster parents, 42% of foster parents are motivated by family 14https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xstadat/xstadat_eves/i_fsg013.html 15 https://www.atv.hu/belfold/20250106/gyermekotthon-neveloszulo/ 16 https://hiros.hu/mintegy-2-000-neveloszulo-hianyzik-orszagosan/ 64 building, e.g. their children are already grown up and they would like to raise children again. Partly overlapping with this is the argument that 45% of them want to become foster parents due to altruism, based on internal motivation, but financial motives also appear among the reasons in 15% of cases (Kothencz, Feleky, Lőrinczi, 2024:53). On average, they become foster parents around the age of 40. Nearly 67% are married at the time of entry in the foster care system and are also raising their own children. However, nearly 20% are single or widowed, of which 11% have children of their own. 18.9% have only primary school education, but typically they have secondary education. Nearly 30% have a high school diploma, and 10% have a higher education degree (Kothencz, Feleky, Lőrinczi, 2024:23-28). In recent years a number of child protection scandals have rocked the profession and public opinion, to which inadequate political and professional responses have been given. There are regular reports in the press about the systematic exploitation and sexual abuse of children17. In one case, for example, the head of an institution exploited the boys in his residential home for years. The director's accomplice was dismissed by the president of the republic which, in addition to exposing the systemic flaws, also amplified the voice of society and its protective stance18. The response was to tighten legislation and introduce checks on the impeccable conduct of employees, carried out by the National Security Service, which is part of the police force.19 Six percent of professionals resigned20 and refused to undergo the investigation, which included an environmental study, questioning neighbours, gathering information about employees' leisure activities, substance use or sexual habits, and collecting data on their financial situation, all of which are typically considered humiliating in the profession. The intended purpose of the measure is to screen out potential paedophile offenders as a guarantee of child safety. Managers and those employed in professional positions will also have to undergo psychological aptitude tests as a result of the 2024 legislative amendment, which will have to be repeated every two years. The inadequacy of this measure is highlighted by the recent revelation of another case of abuse, in which the head of a custody centre for young criminals and his partner forced children in care to engage in prostitution. The investigation found nothing objectionable in the director's lifestyle, and the same director had previously received a state award, even though several reports had been made against him for child abuse and 17 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhiKYNHvFc3_Y7Z-ImsNZXigVHlXLIcJu 18 https://www.szabadeuropa.hu/a/megtelt-a-hosok-tere-ezrek-tuntetnek-a-kegyelmi-botrany-miattbudapesten/32822959.html 19 https://tasz.hu/cikkek/tajekoztato-a-gyermekvedelemben-dolgozokat-erinto-kifogastalan-eletvitelvizsgalatrol/ 20 https://telex.hu/belfold/2024/08/28/gyermekvedelem-szocialis-dolgozo-tavozas-felmondas-cseppkoutcai-gyermekotthon 65 assault21 . The crisis in child protection is illustrated by a recent case in a foster home in a county seat, where a drunk professional molested and abused children, tied babies to radiators, and the conditions of care were appalling, despite reports from the children and professionals in various forums. Suicide attempts were also a daily occurrence22. In principle, we can assume that child protection is a complex support activity aimed at helping children and young people return home as soon as possible or, failing that, to meet their basic needs for social integration (Domszky, 1999). Building on the results of the author's three research studies conducted over the last few years, the current study examines the extent to which adequate assistance and intervention methods are available in family replacement care to correct and restore any disruptions (Rácz, 2022; 2023; Rácz, Bogács, 2023). We discuss what professionals and service users believe is necessary for the system to meet expectations regarding the professional functioning of child protection. The study also presents a case study, through the story of a person receiving aftercare, which highlights the anomalies in the system, the miscommunication of information, and the fragmented and bureaucratic nature of professional care. Although several child protection innovations have been introduced in Hungary, the study concludes by presenting a good practice that supports ICT-based development and the transition to adulthood. Opinions of Child Protection Professionals, Children and Youth in Care Methodology of qualitative research This study summarises the results of three research projects along two main themes: 1) The research conducted as part of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Bolyai Scholarship (2017-2020) dealt, among other things, with the professional image of child protection professionals and the family image of both caregivers and care recipients. Its aim was to identify the dysfunctions of the system. From the perspective of our current topic, the qualitative part of the research is particularly noteworthy, which included individual interviews with child protection experts and decision-makers (8 people) and eight focus group interviews (with an average of four to six participants) with professionals working in the field in various roles, such as family carers, educators, foster parents, child protection guardians, as well as children awaiting removal from their families, children and young people receiving specialist care, and parents affected by child protection issues. The research was conducted in the capital and in rural areas (Rácz, 2022). 2) The second research study, the results of which are presented in the current study, is part of a broader study on social solidarity in Hungarian society. In this study, the author examined the dysfunctions of state child protection and its institutionalised nature through 21 https://hvg.hu/itthon/20250530_Prostituciora-kenyszeritett-lanyokat-a-javitointezet-a-Fidesz-altalkituntetett-mostanra-letartoztatott-igazgatoja 22 https://rtl.hu/hazon-kivul/2025/08/17/szolnoki-befogado-otthon-gyerekbantalmazas-vadak 66 group interviews with experts and professionals working in the field, as well as a case study. The basic criterion for selecting the case was to look at a child protection life story in which problems originating in the family were repeated or showed similar patterns in state child protection. Attila's case was based on four interviews and child protection documentation: interviews with the young adult in aftercare, his adult sibling who was already living independently, the foster parent, and the aftercare worker (Rácz, 2023). 3) The third study was a child protection investigation conducted by a larger research team, which aimed to identify educational values in relation to the day-to-day functioning of specialist care. Here, two expert interviews and two thematic focus group interviews (with children’s home workers and professionals from the foster care network) were conducted together with four individual interviews with care recipients: three with children (aged 1617) and one with a young adult (aged 20). The children and young people interviewed included those living in civil, state and church-run institutions (Rácz, Bogács, 2023). Below, we present some of the main findings of the three qualitative studies and briefly describe the case study conducted as part of study No. 2. Systemic problems in child protection In the cited studies, experts identified the almost complete lack of prevention as one of the most significant problems in the functioning of the system. Due to their heavy workload and high turnover, professionals deal primarily with the most critical cases. The experts agreed that complex and long-term problems should be addressed from a broader perspective, with interdisciplinary cooperation needed to develop possible solutions. The recurrence of the problem within successive generation is a major concern, with many children entering specialist care from families where their parents, grandparents or other relatives have also been in care: “[...] it is a big problem that they are being reproduced. [...] They behave just like their fathers, so these patterns are very evident, and the old cases are coming back alongside the new ones.” (quote from research no. 1: group of child welfare workers, Budapest) It can be said that basic services are lacking or have limited availability, and it is common to have to wait a very long time, either from the time a report is made until adequate system responses are received (Rácz, Sik, 2020), or until a decision is made in a child protection case (Rácz, 2014). Typically, services and benefits are provided at the minimum level required by law. Children arrive with increasingly complex problems and multiple diagnoses, which would require complex services and adequate capacity. The development needs are also diverse. “[...] children are arriving with more and more problems, so there are many with special needs, many children need a psychologist, development therapist, etc. Providing these services is a 67 major task.” (quote from research no. 1: specialist care focus group, foster parent advisor, rural area) Professionals believe that it is also very stressful for them to be unable to help and protect families and children. Professionally inadequate decisions are also personal failures, because professionals feel that, as committed helpers, they themselves are part of a system in which they are powerless and helpless, and thus contribute to the deepening of problems and their systemic recurrence. A kind of homogeneity can be observed in the foster parent network and institutional care in terms of educational values and goals. A fixed daily schedule, providing a framework, reducing social disadvantages and broadening educational opportunities play a major role in education. “What I expected from education was that they would find the point where the child was stuck and intervene at that level and point, or start healing the child.” (quote from research no. 3: Focus group of foster care workers) According to professionals, providing a therapeutic background and a trauma-informed presence are important values. The importance of maintaining biological family relationships, helping to resolve issues with the family, supporting the discovery of family history, and helping to process trauma is also emphasised. In institutional care, greater emphasis is placed on supporting educational advancement, which is one of the keys to starting an independent life. In the case of foster parents, this goal, like the acquisition of self-care skills, is better integrated into everyday life, where biological children often serve as role models. Young people's views on the child protection system Children and young people are also aware of the shortcomings of the child protection system and reflect on this in relation to various issues affecting their lives. They resent the fact that the primary emotion of professionals towards those in their care is pity. “[...] their first thought is that they feel sorry for us on some level, that we ended up there, because if it had been their child who had been placed with foster parents or in a residential home, they would feel sorry for them even more, so I think that’s why they feel sorry for us too.” (quote from research no. 1: group of young adults receiving aftercare, rural area) Young adults are highly critical of the system when they express opinions that do not reflect their individual needs or personal stories, as they feel that they have to adapt to a large machine “[...] I came from a family, I had my own habits, my own temperament, everything, and they didn’t take any of that into account... you had to adapt, and that can be unpleasant.” (quote from research no. 1: group of young adults receiving aftercare, rural area) They also find that their opinions only start to matter when they reach adulthood. 68 Before that, they feel passive and often do not even know what is happening to them or why. “[...] they don’t start with you when they look at your possibilities. [...] I actually feel completely independent, I can organise my own time, and they allow me to try things out my own way, and if it doesn’t work, I agree to let them show me how it should be done.” (quote from research no. 3: adult man raised in a civil society organisation) It is also difficult for them that the reasons and circumstances for their admission are not always clear, for example, if the referral is related to neglectful lifestyle or financial problems. They have differing experiences with the attitude of professionals, but in general they appreciate it when professionals listen to them, pay attention to them and, when they have questions or get stuck, can turn to them with confidence and the information and secrets they share are treated sensitively and empathetically. They greatly appreciate the support they receive in the areas of education, leisure and hobbies. However, their relationship with the child protection guardian is ambivalent; they often believe that the guardian looks after the interests of the system or, for example, sides with the foster parent against the foster child in conflicts with the foster parent. Due to their traumas, young people have very difficult feelings about their families. Typically, their parents serve as bad role models, from whom they want to distance themselves and not become like in the future. Interestingly, they consider it a positive thing that what happened has made them more mature and grown-up compared to their peers. At the level of the child protection system as a whole, it lacks personalisation and humanity. One of them said: “So we need more humane people in this system. And we really need to pay attention to what each foster parent is like, and not just listen to what they say as adults, but also listen to the children's complaints and feelings.” (quote from research no. 3: woman who was placed in a residential home by state foster parents) The positive aspects identified in their upbringing and care are the same in all participants’ accounts, such as presence, empathetic involvement, attentiveness, cooperation between many participants, help in processing past traumas and helping to build a foundation for the future. Table 1: Opinions of child protection professionals and those living in care about everyday life and its challenges Professionals Children and young people Regardless of their background, they adhere to uniform principles in education. In institutional care, it is important to support education so that children can build an independent life based on adequate financial circumstances. In foster families, these processes are more Both institutions and foster care offer many programmes, camps and leisure activities, and they do not feel that there are any shortcomings in this regard. They are grateful for the support and for finding supportive partners and understanding adults among the 69 spontaneous, with a family atmosphere and informal relationships. professionals. They consider education important despite their bad experiences and poor school performance. They have few resources for education, there are many young people with problems (they come from difficult backgrounds, are traumatised, have serious educational disadvantages, behavioural problems and substance abuse), they lack up-to-date knowledge of modern educational methods, and there is a lack of training in this area. There are many conflicts in the case of teenage problems, and professionals are not prepared for this. They often find it difficult to connect with professionals, feeling that they have to adapt to them, that the system makes them uniform, and that there is not always room for their personal stories and opinions. Few services are available, e.g. psychologists, special needs teachers, and a trauma-sensitive approach is generally lacking at the systemic level. There is also a lack of human and financial resources to provide timely and comprehensive support. They do not always receive meaningful help in processing trauma, only episodically, mainly after they get into the system. It is difficult for them because they often do not know why they are in the system, what family reasons led to their removal, what their family history is, how long they will remain in specialist care and where they will end up, or what the future holds for them. The uncertainty of the past, present and future is palpable, even if they feel lucky individually, but they see many negative examples, both in their immediate family and, above all, among their peers. They often do not have a trusting relationship with their child protection guardians, who do not represent their interests, are not supportive, and are not present in important decisions in their lives. Personal example, listening and presence are important educational values for them. It is always necessary to start from the child, their situation and their wishes, and to plan and They need love, attention, to be listened to and to be present at important events in their lives and when planning their future, and they want to work together to construct a way out of child protection. 70 support their future in this way, which requires the joint work of many professionals. There is a lack of social awareness of the situation of those involved in child protection, who experience stigmatisation, compounded by the professionals' own feelings of exclusion and overload. Source: Own edition based on the cited research, 2025. Attila's case – systemic gaps reflected in his personal life Attila is 21 years old and is currently being raised by foster parents as part of aftercare service. He entered the child protection system eight years ago with his two sisters, and he is the youngest child. His sisters quickly started independent lives. The three siblings were placed in special care by the child welfare service. The family social worker believed that the parents' behaviour, resulting from their poor mental state, seriously endangered the healthy development of their children, and that the children were not being adequately cared for due to the family's serious social problems. In 2000, the family fell victim to a housing mafia. Initially, they were provided with accommodation through family ties, but due to conflicts between the growing generations, they had to move, so the local authority allocated them emergency housing in 2005. The child welfare service provided basic care for the family when, unexpectedly, in 2005, the mother left for an unknown destination. She then contacted the psychologist at the child welfare service, telling her that she had fled her home because of her husband's jealousy and that physical and psychological abuse were common in the family. With the help of the psychologist, she spent the night in a night shelter while her husband asked the police for help in finding his wife. After that, the parents went to the child welfare service together, who initiated the taking into care of the children due to the parents' relationship problems. During the first review of the protective measures, the guardianship authority upheld the protective measures due to the family's lifestyle problems, financial difficulties and family conflicts. Positive changes then took place in the family's life. The mother managed to find casual work and the family became members of a church community, and the mother became emotionally stronger. In 2008, the protective measures were terminated. After a less stressful two-year period, in the summer of 2010, the mother contacted child welfare services for help because her husband, who was working in the capital, had attempted suicide. As a result of frequent arguments, the mother left again for an unknown location, leaving the children in the care of their father and his relatives. In October 2010, the children themselves asked the family care worker for help in finding and bringing home their mother, who was found by the police but did not want to return home because of the abusive father. In the days that followed, the eldest sibling contacted the family social worker and said that her father had abused her, so she had spent the night at her girlfriend's family's home. The mother came and went, which made the children very 71 insecure, and their father behaved increasingly strangely. According to their reports, he had paranoid thoughts, shouting in the street that he was being followed. In the individual care and education plan, the family social worker recommended that the father undergo a psychiatric evaluation, although the father did not recognise his mental condition. The father was warned of the consequences of abusing his children. During a visit, the family social worker did not find the father at home, and the children told her that they did not want to live with their father anymore because they were afraid of him and were always afraid that he would kill them or their mother. Attila remembers his childhood as follows: “Well, basically, our mother left us several times for long periods of time. There was a reason for this: my father beat my mother and was pathologically jealous. And so, basically, before we left, the three of us lived together for three months: me, at the age of eight, my 10-year-old sister and my 13-year-old sister, who ran the household. And that was quite stressful, because we had no supervision or security, which a parent should provide, but we didn't have that." Attila remembers that his mother tried several times to ask for help before the situation became increasingly violent, but the professionals were unmoved: “[...] the fact is that my mother took the report to them several times, saying that my father had beaten us and that he was practically deaf in one ear. So that team wasn’t very helpful.” The family counsellor decided that the children would be safer in specialist care, and in the winter of 2011, based on the decision of the registrar, they were placed with foster parents. They seemed to integrate easily into their foster family, who supported the children’s previous relationships, and the siblings had several hobbies and performed well at school. After being placed in child protection, they were initially hostile towards their parents, but later developed a regular relationship with them and received psychological support to help them process their trauma. Attila's eldest sister took on the emotional role of parent, having previously been responsible for the family and her siblings. It seemed that after a long period of suffering and uncertainty, Attila's life had reached a turning point and he was able to enjoy his secondary school years, but then another blow came. It emerged that his foster father was an alcoholic. The counsellor knew about the alcohol problem and the father promised to change, but this did not happen. According to the children, other problems then emerged, such as neglect and discrimination between their own children and their foster siblings in terms of care. “[...] Well, as for the first [foster parent], the Regional Child Protection Service is partly responsible because the foster parent was an alcoholic. The foster mother even hid food from us. And then there were their own children. We got along, but we saw such a negative example, with violence and then alcoholism. And even though we reported it, it took practically six years for them to believe us, or I don't know why they didn't take any action.” The foster parent's legal relationship was terminated, and the children were placed with another foster parent. Attila found it difficult to adjust to the new situation, which was also a really stressful time for him because his sisters had come of age and started independent lives. Attila is currently learning a trade, is in a stable 72 partnership, and has a neutral relationship with his foster parent and aftercare worker, but he accepts their help. “[...] I like to make my own decisions, but of course if it affects someone else, then I involve them, for example if it’s a partnership problem. But otherwise, I like to make my own decisions and stand by them.” He is eligible for home creation support, which can help him start an independent life, although he has no cash assets. He is emotionally attached to his parents, but cannot receive financial or moral support from them. His sisters continue to provide him with support. The case study shows that the child welfare and child protection systems that provided assistance barely intersected with his life, and his rights and interests were violated on several counts. In his case, assistance was mostly provided as a stopgap measure to solve an existing problem, and despite reports from professionals, they were not listened to. A lot of time passed between the request for help and the provision of assistance. Their credibility was questioned at the level of basic child welfare services and then at the level of foster care, or their problems, which were very serious, were trivialised. Similarly, the biological mother did not receive any meaningful help, even when she reported serious abuse and domestic violence. They were neglected in specialist care and experienced insecurity due to alcohol problems. Their defining experience was a sense of conditionality, of not mattering, and of help being delayed. With the help of his siblings, his own diligence and a positive outlook on the future, Attila is trying to get his life back on track. He does not have much faith in the child protection system and is critical of the professionals involved, although he does make use of the professional help available and will remain in the system for as long as his aftercare allows. Overall, it can be said that in the absence of support from responsible adults, the child could only rely on himself and his parentified siblings, especially his eldest sister. Attila's story clearly shows that the family problems identified by the child protection system were met with half-measures or delayed support. Beyond basic care, the care process provided by the state child protection system was marked by recurring situations of risk, and problems arising in specialist care were addressed late, with responses that ignored the children's perspectives and disregarded their opinions and wishes. A Good Practice YOUNGo – “a helper who is always available in your pocket” The following is an example of good practice in the form of an app developed by the Rubeus Association for children in specialist care and the professionals working with them. Of course, there are many innovations and examples of good practice in child protection in Hungary, such as the training courses, projects and chatbots of the Hintalovon Children's 73 POLAND 80 Child Protection Standards (SOD) in Poland: Between Legal Necessity and Everyday Challenges Emil Korzeniewski Emil Korzeniewski, M.A34. – Assistant at the Department of Theory of Education and Pedagogy of Care, University of Gdańsk. His doctoral research focuses on the conceptual foundations of care, nurturing, relationship, and education within the practice of caregiving and educational work in residential childcare institutions. He has professional experience in the foster care system. Currently, in addition to his academic work, he practices as a psychotherapist at the Centrum Pomocy Dzieciom of the Empowering Children Foundation (FDDS) – an institution operating according to the Barnahus and Children’s Advocacy Centre models. Keywords SOD, Social policy, Child rights Abstract This article is of a review character. It seeks to describe the system of child protection in Poland, with particular emphasis on the legal regulations introducing the Standards for the Protection of Children, which have been in force since 2024. The text provides an analysis of available scholarly studies concerning the implementation and functioning of these new provisions. Both the historical context and the prior experiences of the Polish child protection system are taken into account. Research findings on the potential benefits and risks arising from the introduction of the new regulations are examined, with attention drawn to their implications for institutional practice and the further development of social policy in the area of child rights protection. In addition, the article formulates recommendations and conclusions for practitioners regarding the application of the new provisions in order to safeguard the broad interests of children. 1. Introduction For many years, it has been difficult to reach a cross-party consensus in Poland that would allow for the implementation of legal regulations aimed at safeguarding the well-being of children both within families and the broader education or foster care systems. Until 34 Contact: Emil Korzeniewski, University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Pedagogy, Department of Theory of Education and Pedagogy of Care, ul. Bażyńskiego 8, 80309 Gdańsk, Poland, email: emil.korze[email protected]l 81 recently (i.e., the early 21st century), the prevailing societal consensus was that children and adolescents constituted a weaker and largely invisible segment of society. As a result, they were marginalized and effectively deprived of their right to be heard (FlisŚwieczkowska, 2023). The protection of children and young people from violence, abuse, and neglect has only recently emerged as a political and social priority in Poland. Previous legal mechanisms and the actions of both public and non-governmental institutions tended to be fragmented and lacked a coherent, nationwide strategy. Their effectiveness often depended on local initiatives and the commitment of individual representatives within the system. In practice, this led to significant disparities in the level of protection afforded to children across different regions of the country, with many cases of violence either going unnoticed or being reported in an inadequate manner. A tragic incident involving a young child acted as a catalyst for systemic change. In 2023, the media reported the death of a young boy who had suffered from domestic violence. The scale and brutality of this tragedy shocked the public and exposed serious gaps in the child protection system. In response, a legislative amendment was introduced to the Act of 13 May 2016 on counteracting threats related to sexual crime and on the protection of minors, commonly referred to as the "Act X35”. 2. Historical Background One of the most influential figures in initiating the discourse on children's rights in Poland was undoubtedly Janusz Korczak—a Polish-Jewish educator and child protection advocate. His legacy can be encapsulated by a quote from one of his posthumously published works: “There are no children, there are people.” (Korczak, 1958) Korczak's engagement with children was far from theoretical. During the interwar period and throughout World War II, he managed the "Dom Sierot" (Orphan’s Home), an institution providing shelter and safety for Jewish children orphaned or abandoned due to wartime circumstances. Drawing from his direct experience, Korczak formulated principles that called for the inclusion and emancipation of children’s voices in public discourse (Kmak, 2021). A particularly notable period in the context of children’s rights in Poland was the era of the Polish People's Republic (PRL). This period was marked by ideological conflict between two major actors: the Polish United Workers’ Party (PZPR) and the Catholic Church. Despite their opposing ideologies, both institutions shared a strong interest in shaping children’s upbringing. On the one hand, the state organized large-scale, state-sponsored celebrations 35 In the Polish media space, the law was named after the tragically deceased child. For ethical reasons, the child’s name was replaced with X. 82 such as Children’s Day and established so-called “children’s communist towns.” On the other hand, the Catholic Church heavily focused on child-centered initiatives such as catechism classes, children's sacraments, and various educational and pastoral programs. Despite these efforts, both institutions largely ignored the widespread issue of child abuse occurring within families and schools. Violence against children was reportedly common during this period. For instance, nearly one-quarter of respondents in a study on memories from the PRL era recalled physical abuse by teachers (Budziszewska et al., 2015): "You used to be allowed to hit children. There was one teacher who used a rubber inner tube and simply beat the children on their hands. There were maybe two or three teachers like that in our school. One time, my classmate got a multiplication table question wrong twice. The teacher beat her hands so badly that they were bruised and bleeding. I personally was hit with a chalkboard—she banged my head against it for every mistake I made." (Woman, recollection from the 1980s, rural school; Budziszewska et al., 2015) During this time, the Catholic Church did not take an official stance on violence in schools. While it functioned as an opposition force to the undemocratic state, it largely overlooked the rights and dignity of the child. The evolution of the concept of children’s rights in Poland has, nevertheless, been strongly influenced by international initiatives. In 1989, Poland was one of the initiators of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, meaningful legal changes only began with the adoption of the new Polish Constitution in 1997. The 1997 Constitution introduced the principle of human dignity— including that of children—as a fundamental and protected value of the state. This provision generated significant debate, particularly in relation to children’s personal rights, including bodily integrity. The new Constitution also established the Office of the Ombudsman for Children (Rzecznik Praw Dziecka), although the first appointment to the position—Marek Piechowiak—did not occur until the year 2000 due to contentious public discussions. n the following years, a kind of acceptance of the status quo emerged. Many politicians believed that the existing legal framework was sufficient to ensure children's safety, even as numerous public campaigns, such as “Don't Shake the Baby” and “Hitting is Stupid”, drew attention to the issue of violence. These campaigns, typically organized by non-governmental organizations, played a vital role in raising awareness. One of the most significant legal milestones was the formal prohibition of corporal punishment of children—an initiative largely championed by Ombudsman for Children Marek Michalak, who described this legislative success as one of his most important achievements. This was particularly noteworthy given the continued public acceptance of physical punishment at the time. Unfortunately, the high-profile case mentioned in the introduction was not an isolated incident. At the turn of the 21st century, Polish media reported numerous tragic stories 83 involving children36. One of the most controversial was the 2011 case of an infant’s death in Sosnowiec. Following the sentencing of the child’s mother, a tabloid published a cover interview featuring the convicted woman posing in lingerie on horseback, under the caption: “Now I have time for my passions.” Despite repeated incidents, these cases rarely led to legislative change—until the tragedy referenced in the introduction prompted a national reckoning and a push for systemic reform. As part of the 2024 legal amendment, institutions in regular contact with children are now required to develop and implement Child Protection Standards (Standardy Ochrony Dzieci – SOD) (Journal of Laws 2024, item 560, Articles 22b–22c). The new provisions came into force on February 15, 2024, with a compliance deadline of August 15, 2024. These standards have since become mandatory for educational and childcare institutions, with the goal of establishing mechanisms to prevent harm and to ensure consistent responses to violence, neglect, or abuse. The reform responds not only to domestic reports but also to international obligations, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the Council of Europe’s Lanzarote Convention (2007). One of the key contributors to the development of the standards was the Empowering Children Foundation (Fundacja Dajemy Dzieciom Siłę – FDDS). Since 2010, FDDS has conducted research and published findings related to child abuse prevention. It also played a critical role in training professionals and conducting public education campaigns in schools and care institutions. FDDS provided practical tools, including a child protection policy generator, and participated in public consultations, offering legislators valuable insights from frontline professionals. As early as 2010, FDDS began promoting child protection standards in Polish schools by developing model procedures for responding to violence and neglect. Its “Child Protection Standards” program included staff training, educational materials for children, and institutional safety audits. Research conducted by FDDS showed that institutions implementing these procedures responded more effectively to signs of abuse and cooperated more successfully with child protection authorities (Drabarek & Makaruk, 2022). Between 2010 and 2019, the implementation of child protection standards in Poland was voluntary, leading to significant disparities between institutions in urban and rural areas. Some institutions developed comprehensive protocols, while others introduced only minimal measures, thereby increasing the risk of oversight and failing to guarantee children's safety. In many cases, institutions did not address these issues at all. 36 In 2023, the Onet portal reported the suicide of a thirteen-year-old girl in foster care. In 2025, the TVN24 news portal reported the death of a six-year-old child, with the child’s parents facing criminal charges. 84 In the 2010s, increased media coverage—especially through social and traditional outlets— began to spotlight the issue of child abuse, particularly within church-affiliated institutions. This exposed the systemic nature of violence against children and underscored the urgent need for structural reforms. Over time, educational and care institutions in Poland gradually adapted to new legal requirements. A key milestone was the introduction of mandatory criminal background checks for employees (Journal of Laws 2011 No. 180, item 1073), along with government recommendations for anti-violence policies in schools. However, until recently, Poland lacked a unified legal act that would integrate all components of a comprehensive child protection system. 3. The Importance of Child Protection Standards for Ensuring Children's Safety The Child Protection Standards (SOD) establish a set of minimum requirements that every institution working with children is legally obliged to implement. The law outlines, among other things, the need to define safe relationship guidelines between staff and children, to develop clear procedures for reporting suspected harm, and to ensure appropriate institutional responses to concerning situations or disclosures of abuse. Institutions are also required to safeguard children's personal data and images, screen staff for criminal records, and provide regular training for personnel. Crucially—and often overlooked in practice— children must be informed of their rights and have access to reporting mechanisms that are age-appropriate and accessible to them (Journal of Laws 2024, item 560, Article 22c). The implementation of these procedures is not only a formal requirement but also carries significant psychological and educational value. Establishing transparent and understandable protocols gives children a sense of safety and predictability in situations involving the disclosure of abuse. A child who knows that their school or care institution follows clear protection rules is more likely to feel that their safety is a priority. This is especially important for children with disabilities or special educational needs—groups more vulnerable to abuse than their peers (Szwed, 2024) as well as for children placed in the foster care system. In such cases, the standards help create an environment in which the child can report their experiences without fear, and staff are equipped with procedures and tools to respond appropriately to incidents of harm. This, at least, was the intention of the lawmakers and experts involved in drafting the legislation. Research conducted in institutions that implemented the program showed a marked increase in interventions in suspected abuse cases and a rise in staff confidence regarding their competencies (Drabarek & Makaruk, 2022). However, it is important to note that these studies were conducted during a period when implementation of the standards was voluntary. As such, the findings may reflect outcomes primarily from institutions that already prioritized violence prevention. 85 It is also worth emphasizing that these legal reforms in Poland are not isolated developments but part of a broader international trend. Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) obligates states to protect children from all forms of violence. Furthermore, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in General Comment No. 13 (2011), stresses that institutions working with children must establish complaint procedures that are accessible and child-friendly. The Council of Europe echoes these requirements, asserting that schools and care institutions must not only prevent violence but also provide active support to children during crises (Council of Europe, 2018). From the perspective of international law, the absence of clear and precise procedures for reporting abuse would constitute non-compliance with these standards. Against this backdrop, it becomes clear that the standards introduced in Poland are not merely bureaucratic requirements but tools for real protection. When implemented with full commitment, they help organize staff responsibilities and intervention procedures, while also empowering children to participate actively in their own protection—not simply as passive recipients of care. As shown in the study by Drabarek and Makaruk (2022), schools that had adopted the standards were more likely to take action against cyberbullying, respond more quickly to signs of abuse, and collaborate more effectively with external protection agencies. It is this practical function—linking institutional responsibility with the cultivation of a protection-oriented culture—that makes the new legislation transformative. The implementation of standards in Poland also facilitates alignment with established European models of child protection. In countries such as Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, similar procedures have been in place for years and have been shown to effectively reduce the risk of abuse. Pilot studies in schools implementing the Child Protection Standards highlighted a range of benefits. A majority (64%) of educational staff reported improved safety and protection for students, along with an increase in school-wide awareness (22%). From the perspective of specialist teachers and professionals, the most significant improvement was the introduction of internal transparency in procedures for responding to suspected child abuse (Drabarek & Makaruk, 2022). The study also revealed a key challenge in implementing the standards—resistance or lack of engagement from parents (40%). To illustrate this difficulty, one participant commented: “Collaboration with parents is the biggest challenge today—they are hostile toward the school, unwilling to cooperate or participate in proposed activities like workshops or lectures. Out of about 300 invited parents, maybe three agree to participate.” (School psychologist, Drabarek & Makaruk, 2022) Implementation of the Child Protection Standards also obliges management personnel to obtain information from the Sexual Offenses Registry, which was established in 2016 as a 86 preventive measure against sexual crimes, particularly those involving minors (Truszkowski & Warston, 2024). Under the amended law, individuals working with children and youth are now required to submit a declaration of non-conviction under penalty of criminal liability (Truszkowski & Warston, 2024). These provisions are not only reactive but also preventive in nature, reinforcing violence prevention within institutional settings. 4. Consequences of Non-Compliance with Child Protection Standards Although the implementation of Child Protection Standards (SOD) is now a legal obligation in Poland, practice reveals that some institutions treat these regulations as yet another bureaucratic formality rather than a tool for the real protection of children. However, minimizing or disregarding these standards can result in serious legal and social consequences. A school principal or head of an institution who fails to implement a child protection policy may face administrative liability, and in extreme cases, even criminal responsibility. The Act on Preventing Threats Related to Sexual Crime and the Protection of Minors explicitly states that the absence of procedures, or failure to fulfill obligations related to their implementation, may trigger supervisory actions by the managing authority or school inspectorates (Journal of Laws 2024, item 560, Articles 22c–22g). In practice, however, the more significant consequences of ignoring these standards are pedagogical and developmental. In institutions where staff are not properly trained and children are unaware of their rights, the risk of unreported abuse increases. This also elevates the likelihood of violence occurring within the institution itself. Research conducted by the Empowering Children Foundation (FDDS) shows that in schools lacking clear procedures, children are less likely to report experiences of abuse, fearing a lack of adult response or potential retaliation (FDDS, 2021). The absence of transparent rules contributes to a culture of silence, where children’s suffering remains invisible, and those who experience violence are denied appropriate support and intervention. The principle of "two sets of eyes"—which requires the presence of at least two adults during interactions that could expose a child to risk—was introduced to minimize the potential for abuse while also protecting staff from false accusations. If this principle is ignored, the risk of both actual incidents and the erosion of trust in the institution increases significantly. Failing to comply with the standards thus directly affects relationships between staff and children. In the context of schools or care facilities, this trust is fundamental; its loss may lead to heightened behavioral challenges, child isolation, or even secondary victimization. Another key consequence of neglecting the standards is the failure to initiate organizational culture change. Child protection standards were never intended to be merely a set of documents; rather, they were designed to catalyze a shift in how 87 children are perceived—as rights-holders, not merely as passive recipients of care or education. When institutions implement the standards superficially, they miss the opportunity to strengthen staff competencies and to create environments that are genuinely child-friendly. In doing so, they forfeit the chance to ensure that education and care are not only effective, but also safe. 5. Public Debate and Controversies The implementation of Child Protection Standards (SOD) has sparked significant public debate in Poland, with the primary point of contention being the rapid pace of their introduction. School principals and heads of care institutions reported that the time allocated to adapt internal procedures was insufficient, and the lack of uniform guidelines led to organizational confusion. Teachers and educators complained that they were provided only with general recommendations, with no practical tools or clear guidance on how to respond in situations of suspected harm or risk. Trade unions, including the Polish Teachers' Union (ZNP), criticized the government for shifting the burden of responsibility onto schools, without ensuring adequate financial and organizational support (ZNP, 2023). The media landscape also featured political narratives portraying the standards as a form of “excessive state surveillance” over teachers. A member of the opposition stated publicly that “the legislator treats teachers as potential criminals.” In response, experts from the Empowering Children Foundation (FDDS) reminded the public that the “two pairs of eyes” rule has long been a standard in Western countries and is intended to protect both children and educational staff. Some criticism focused on interpersonal boundaries, particularly around relationships outside institutional settings. Teachers and parents expressed concern that the standards might restrict informal interactions with students—such as contact after school hours or communication via social media. Experts, however, emphasized that the absence of clear rules in the past had facilitated misconduct, creating ambiguous situations in which children were particularly vulnerable. The public debate also included concerns about the role of non-governmental organizations. Critics argued that NGOs had disproportionate influence on the drafting of legislation and accused them of introducing ideological bias into the legal framework. This accusation, although contested by child protection experts, highlights the polarized nature of the discussion, in which child safety was at times overshadowed by political and ideological disputes. 88 6. Conclusion and Key Findings The development of systemic solutions for ensuring child safety in Poland can rightfully be described as a form of contemporary history. These regulations have only been fully in force since August 15, 2024, and as of now, limited empirical data is available to assess their effectiveness. While evaluations conducted by non-governmental organizations offer some insight, the scale of legislative change suggests that a reliable assessment of the implemented measures—and the formulation of policy recommendations—requires largescale, longitudinal research. Reaching a consensus on how to evaluate these legal provisions may prove particularly difficult in the current climate of political polarization and the increasing ideological framing of children's rights by political actors. This has become especially apparent in recent political developments, where a proposed amendment to child protection laws was blocked. To illustrate just how recent and dynamic this legal and political context is, it is important to note that the presidential veto of the amendment occurred on August 29, 2025. In his justification, the President argued that certain provisions of the bill could negatively affect the process of obtaining documentation necessary for individuals working with children. What this incident highlights is the highly contentious nature of current child protection reforms, as the President opted to exercise a full veto—one of the most consequential legislative tools available—rather than allowing the changes to proceed through alternative channels. This situation underscores the fragile and politicized environment surrounding child protection policies in Poland, where the safeguarding of children’s rights is increasingly entangled in broader ideological and institutional disputes37. In my teaching practice with future educators and social workers, I frequently encounter a clear need for precise and well-defined legal frameworks that can support them in navigating the realities of their professional roles. At the early stages of their careers, students often point to the ambiguity surrounding concepts such as “responsibility” and “authority” in the context of intervention work. Research on burnout among social workers consistently highlights the emotional toll associated with “containing” or managing difficult emotions—particularly those related to witnessing or dealing with cases of violence—and the lack of adequate resources to perform their professional duties (Stanek, 2022). 37 Accessed on August 30, 2025: https://www.prezydent.pl/prawo/ustawy-zawetowane/szefkprp-prezydent-podpisal-ustawe-o-swiadeczniach-opieki-zdrowotnej-zawetowalnowelizacje-tzw-lex-kamilek,105980 89 genogram; an ecogram; needs assessment protocols; collateral contact with other entities; complementary psychosocial instruments; and instruments to assess parenting skills. This process should safeguard against all circumstances of possible secondary victimization, avoiding repetition of the narrative or acts that may exacerbate the trauma. Based on this diagnostic assessment, the CPCJ will justify the need for intervention, applying protective measures (including: Support for parents; Support for another family member; Trust in a suitable person; Support for independent living; Foster care; Residential care | n.º. 1, Article 35 of the LPCYD), involving a promotion and protection agreement and an intervention plan. Finally, when CPCJ intervention, for various reasons (Article 11 of the LPCYD), is not permitted, possible, or effective, the case is referred to the court. The entire assessment and intervention process follows the same premises already outlined in the Ecological Model for Assessment and Intervention in Situations of Risk and Danger to Children. According to the LPCYD and Decree-Law No. 332-B/2000, the monitoring of court promotion and protection processes is the responsibility of the multidisciplinary teams that advise the courts (MTACT), specifically in terms of technical support for judicial decisions (through diagnostic assessment, preparation of information and social reports) and monitoring the implementation of the promotion and protection measures applied (Rogado, 2009). This multilevel intervention is expressed in a set of guiding principles (Article 4 of the LPCYD): Best interests of the child; Privacy; Early intervention; Minimal intervention; Proportionality and timeliness; Parental responsibility; Primacy of continuity of deep psychological relationships; Prevalence of the family; Mandatory information; Mandatory hearing and participation; Subsidiarity. It is important to note that the SPRPCJ is based on the important Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). 2. Brief historical overview of residential care in Portugal Portugal has a long social and legal history of protecting children and young people, with its pioneering child protection law of 1911. Although it is possible to find older records from the 16th and 17th centuries with the first regulations on childcare, with the Manueline and Philippine Ordinances (Rodrigues, 2019; Vilaverde, 2000; Almeida, Fernandes, and Peixoto, 2021). It is also possible to find older records specifically related to the care of orphaned or unprotected children, beginning in the Middle Ages with the role of the Church in the care of abandoned children, as well as some references to hospices and hospitals, such as the Hospital Real de Todos os Santos - Casa dos Meninos (Inácio, 2014; Martins, 2014; Rodrigues, 2019). The "rodas dos expostos" was another way for abandoned children to be adopted by other families (Leandro, 2011; Martins, 2014; Rosa, 2010), and these practices continued over the following centuries. In the 14th century, the first 96 Portuguese institutions created specifically to care for abandoned children were the Hospital dos Meninos Órfãos de Lisboa (Hospital for Orphan Boys of Lisbon) and the Hospital de Santa Maria dos Inocentes (Hospital of Saint Mary of the Innocents), founded by Queen Beatriz and Queen Isabel, respectively (Inácio, 2014; Rodrigues, 2019). In the 15th century, on the initiative of Queen Leonor and King Manuel, several institutions for the care of children were established in the areas of Lisbon and Porto (Vilaverde, 2000). In the 16th and 17th centuries, the first regulations on the care of children appeared, with the Manueline and Philippine Ordinances, and the role of the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (NGO) also emerged during this period (Rodrigues, 2019; Vilaverde, 2000). In 1775 and 1800, Queen Maria I, through her own decrees, laid the foundations for the organization of childcare in institutions (Sá, 1997). The Casa Pia de Lisboa (NGO), founded in 1780, played a key role, and in 1834, the first shelter for needy children and the Sociedade dos Asilos Infantis (Society of Children's Shelters) were founded (Rodrigues, 2019). At the beginning of the 20th century, family support policies were established that contributed to a change in practices, maintaining alternative care options (Martins, 2014). The Child Protection Law of 1911 placed Portugal at the forefront of child protection, thus distinguishing children from adults and criminal law from juvenile law, based on a paternalistic and welfare-oriented justice system (Gonçalves & Sani, 2013; Rodrigues, 2019; Vilaverde, 2000). This law refers to the possibility of placing children in institutions without any specifications regarding structure, organization, or quality. Most Portuguese residential homes are private non-profit organizations. Some were orphanages or boarding schools, where, largely due to poverty, families left their children to ensure they were fed and learned a trade (Rodrigues, 2019). These are generally associated with large institutions, with a large number of children, without privacy and comfort, and far from a family context, protection, affection, and relationships (Alberto, 2002). In the 1940s, the National Organization for the Defense of the Family was created, assistance services were remodeled and centralized, family financial support was granted to the most needy families, maternal and child benefits and childcare in general were provided, and the Maternal and Child Institute and the Institute for Assistance to Minors were created (Martins, 2006). The 1944 judicial statute was also published, changing the name from Children's Court to Juvenile Court (Martins, 2006). In 1956, the Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (NGO) promoted the first restructuring of residential care in the district of Lisbon (Calheiros, Fornelos, & Dinis, 1993; Rodrigues, 2019). In 1962, a new law called the Organização Tutelar de Menores (Minors Guardianship Organization) was enacted, with successive revisions (Delgado, 2006; Gomes, 2010; 97 Gonçalves & Sani, 2013). After a long period of dictatorship in Portugal, the 1976 Constitution of the Portuguese Republic, approved after the country's first free general elections, established that the State would ensure special protection for orphaned, abandoned, or deprived children (Articles 69(2)). In 1986, a new law (2/1986) regulated residential care, advocating for a small number of children per institution, with a family environment, promoting their personal development and social integration into the community (Gonçalves & Sani, 2013; Rodrigues & Barbosa-Durchane, 2017). In 1990, Portugal was one of the first countries to approve the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Gomes, 2010; Simões, 2011), resulting in the LPCJP. Thus, until the end of the 20th century, social assistance responses for C/J were called: Temporary Reception Centers, for short-term care of up to six months and for younger children; Children's and Youth Homes, for long-term care and for older children; Independent Apartments; Residential Homes; Life Support Centers and Support Houses (Rodrigues & Barbosa-Ducharne, 2017; Simões, 2011). In 1991, Child Protection Committees began to be set up locally and in the surrounding areas, with the aim of preventing children from being taken to court and raising awareness in the community of their duty to work together with families to find viable solutions for intervening with children and young people. A major reform took place in 2001 with the Law on the Protection of Children and Young People in Danger, which is anchored in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic (CRP) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), defining, among other things, the measure of residential care. This law refers to the possibility of children being housed in institutions without any specifications regarding structure, organization, or quality. Most Portuguese residential care institutions are private non-profit organizations. In some of them, mainly due to poverty, families left their children so that they could be fed and learn a trade (Rodrigues, 2019). They are generally associated with macro-institutions, with a large number of children, without privacy or comfort, and far from a family context that is protective, affectionate, and relational (Alberto, 2002). It was only in 2004 that the first large-scale data collection and characterization of children in residential care institutions was carried out in a more structured way, and since then it has been done annually (currently called Annual Characterization of the Situation of Institutional Care for Children/Young People - CASA, ISS-IP, 2019). Several programs and projects were frequently launched to improve the quality of residential care, such as the DOM Plan in 2009, which would be replaced in 2017 by the SERE Plan. As Simões (2011) argues, these plans aimed to promote an extra human touch in care institutions, focused on the needs of C/Y, in a more familiar and therapeutic environment, while investing in new specialized services. More recently, it was only in 2019 that the Law introduced the residential care implementation system, a measure to promote the rights and protection of children and 98 young people in danger, aided by Ordinances No. 450/2023 of December 22, No. 95/2024 of March 11, and Law No. 23/2023 of May 25, allowing foster homes to be organized into specialized units in order to respond to specific problems and the educational and/or therapeutic intervention needs of children and young people. Creation of foster homes, with up to 15 children of a family nature, in a totally restorative environment, with therapeutic intent. Despite this long history, the evolution of the quality of residential care has been slow, complex, and even misunderstood by child policies. Evidence-based perspectives, supported by various theoretical perspectives that inform different paradigms over time, point to a practice of risk in relation to children that must be understood through a lens of child development, attachment, trauma-informed, and systematic, and must consider situational and contextual factors (Bowlby, 1951, 1969; Scottish Government, 2021). Portugal and its organization of residential care for children, despite the progress made, still has a long way to go to reconcile effective practice with science. International developments have been faster than in Portugal, considering that, from a historical perspective, residential care institutions were often large institutions, such as orphanages and reformatories, evolving into more therapeutic and supportive environments; with smaller, family-like settings, aiming to create a more welcoming environment, all of which lead to challenges in the cohesive definition of residential care (Geurts et al., 2012; Gharabaghi, 2024; Hicks & Sinclair, 2012). 3. Brief overview of residential care in Portugal The term residential care for children1 lacks a universally accepted definition, reflecting the complex and dynamic nature of child welfare practices in different sociocultural contexts (Ainsworth & Whittaker, 2017; Hamilton-Giachritsis, et al., 2021), which vary significantly between countries in terms of services provided, size, and types of organization (Sindi, 2022). It is a multifaceted concept that encompasses various definitions and interpretations, largely influenced by cultural, social, and historical contexts (Johnson et al., 2006; Raj & Raval, 2013), as is the case in Portugal, according to point 2 above. Residential care refers to different types of non-family alternative care services (Sindi, 2022) and encompasses various contexts and philosophies that aim to provide care and support to vulnerable young people who cannot live with their families (Ainsworth & Whittaker, 2017; Hamilton-Giachritsis, et al., 2021). The term generally refers to the provision of care to children and young people who cannot live with their biological families due to a range of circumstances, including neglect, abuse, or family breakdown (Johnson et al., 2006; Raj & Raval, 2013). 99 Portugal is one of the countries with the highest rate of child institutionalization in Europe, with around 232 children/young people per 100,000 inhabitants, which is almost three times the global average (UNICEF, 2024). Here, residential care is seen as a measure to promote and protect rights, implemented when a child or young person is at risk and cannot temporarily remain with their family. It is legally framed by the Law on the Protection of Children and Young People in Danger (Law No. 147/99, of September 1) and subsequent amendments, and by Decree-Law No. 164/2019, of October 25, which specifically regulates the implementation of residential care, and by Ordinance No. 450/2023, which regulates the organization, operation, and installation of foster homes for children and young people (Assembly of the Republic, 1999; Government of Portugal, 2019; Ministry of Labor, Solidarity, and Social Security, 2023). It is defined as the placement of a child or young person in the care of an institution that has adequate facilities, equipment, and permanent human resources, with sufficient size and qualifications to ensure adequate care for their needs and well-being, with a view to their full development (see Table 1). Table 1. Residential care in Portugal - Objectives and principles Objectives  Adequate satisfaction of their physical, psychological, emotional, educational, and social needs;  Establishment of secure and stable emotional bonds, crucial for the structuring and harmonious development of their personality;  Minimization of emotional damage resulting from the exposure of children or young people to dangerous situations;  Acquisition of skills for their personal, social, educational, and professional development;  Conditions that contribute to the construction of their identity and integration of their life history;  Progressive acquisition of autonomy with a view to full social, academic, professional, and community integration;  Promotion of the acquisition and reinforcement of skills by parents and/or guardians, so that they can perform their duties appropriately, respecting the best interests of the child or young person. Principles  Individualization - the intervention must take into account the child or young person as a subject of rights and their specific needs, particularly in terms of care and attention, allowing them to create secure and affectionate relationships and develop skills and values that promote 100 their role in the community, ensuring their well - being and integral development;  Adequacy - the intervention must be adapted to the needs of each child or young person, their family situation, and the purpose and duration of the placement;  Normalization - the child or young person should have a daily routine similar to that of any other child or young person of the same age;  Participation and hearing - The child or young person is guaranteed privacy and the necessary means of contact to participate in the processes and decisions that affect them. They are also guaranteed the conditions to participate and be heard in decisions that concern them, based on their age and maturity. Their opinions must be taken into account, especially regarding the definition and implementation of their promotion and protection project and the review of the residential care measure;  Privacy - The promotion of the rights and protection of children and young people must be carried out with scrupulous respect for their privacy, image rights, and intimacy.  Diligent intervention - Intervention must be efficient, ensuring the fastest possible placement of the child or young person, as well as the implementation of the individual intervention plan and the definition of their life project;  Preservation of parental and sibling ties - attention should be paid to proximity to the contexts of origin and the safeguarding of deep psychological relationships, as well as to the non-separation of siblings, except where this is contrary to the best interests of the children or young people involved;  Joint responsibility of the family of origin - the participation and training of the family of origin should be encouraged with a view to commitment and collaboration;  Inter-institutional collaboration - coordination between the entities involved must be ensured, within the framework of a systemic approach which, through the respective professionals, allows and facilitates the stimulation and development of the potential of the child or young person and their families. 101 However, international collaborations have consistently highlighted the importance of Therapeutic Residential Care (TRC), which emphasizes principles such as a family environment, trauma-informed care, and a focus on the holistic development of children and young people in care (Ainsworth & Whittaker, 2017). This consensus underscores the importance of aligning practices with a rights-based and development needs-based approach, highlighting that residential care must prioritize emotional support and the development of life skills in order to be effectively therapeutic (Ainsworth & Whittaker, 2017; Magalhães et al., 2016; Magalhães et al., 2018). The scope of residential childcare has evolved significantly, moving from institutional models, such as orphanages and boarding schools, to more community-centered approaches that emphasize therapeutic and family-focused care (Gharabaghi, 2024; Geurts et al., 2012). The shift to a communityoriented model emphasizes the importance of aftercare support and reintegration into the family or community as a central goal of placement (Geurts et al., 2012; Rovers et al., 2019). Furthermore, the effectiveness of residential care depends significantly on its organizational model and the training of caregivers within these contexts. Evidence suggests that residential care can be effective, particularly when it accommodates the complex needs of children and young people (Ferreira, Oliveira, & Peixoto, 2021). In Portugal, therapeutic care has received little attention and investment. Preparation for autonomy and independent living for children and young people is poorly implemented. A qualitative and quantitative study that aimed to assess the perceptions of professionals in foster homes regarding preparation for autonomy and independent living concluded that, although these professionals consider this work essential, they recognize that it is not implemented due to a lack of practical knowledge, a lack of practical manuals, and a lack of resources and time (Cancujo, 2023; Ribeiro, 2023). Another study shows insufficient resources to support emancipation and meet the needs of those leaving foster care; similarly, the difficulties inherent in the labor market and the increase in housing prices, especially in large cities, are making it difficult to achieve the milestone of independent living (Díaz-Esterri, et al., 2025). In Portugal, there is no consolidated post-care support service. The law only mentions (Government of Portugal, 2019) six months of follow-up after leaving the foster home and the possibility for young people (over 18) to return to the foster home of their own accord due to a situation of vulnerability (Assembly of the Republic, 2023, Law No. 23/2023). An interesting example has been the Support Platform for (Former) Young People in Care (PAJE), which aims to promote the social and labor inclusion of young adults who have left residential care, providing support in everyday and more continuous/in-depth situations, with the help of a multidisciplinary team. PAJE also aims to provide informal support (psychological, legal, counseling, etc.), putting the knowledge of volunteer professionals at the service of those who were unlucky in the early stages of their lives (Gaspar, Gaspar, & Elias, 2017; Gaspar, et al., 2019). 102 Regardless of the definition of residential care, more than 2.7 million young people worldwide are placed in this type of alternative environment (Petrowski et al., 2017). However, the proportion of placements seems to vary greatly depending on the country (Hamilton-Giachritsis, Peixoto, & Garicia-Quiroga, & Ferreira, 2021). According to the Eurochild and Unicef report (2021), there are significant variations across Europe in terms of the percentage of children in foster care versus residential care, with countries such as Malta (5.5%), Ireland (8.8%), Estonia (10.8%) the United Kingdom (14.6%), and Sweden (22.3%) have percentages of children in residential institutions below 25%. Other countries, such as Greece (84.5%) and Portugal (94.7%), have the highest percentage of children in residential care (considering the total number of children in the out-of-home care system). Some countries have intermediate values, such as Cyprus (65.5%), Austria (60%), Luxembourg (56.8%), Germany (52.8%), Spain (52.1%), Italy (47.6%), and Belgium (42.1%). (Search for the international study presented at Santa Casa da Misericórdia do Porto, which set the targets for Portugal) These data indicate that Portugal lags behind the international scene, with little appreciation and investment in alternative care measures, such as foster care. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child underlines that every child should ideally grow up in a family, which critiques institutional care models where children are separated from familial support systems (Johnson et al., 2006). Thus, the most recent data on institutional care in Portugal are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. General characteristics of residential care in Portugal – 2023 (CASA Report, ISS, 2024)  6,446 children and young people were in residential care, representing an increase of 1.5% compared to 2022.  86% of children and young people were in residential care, while only 3.6% were in foster care.  The vast majority of residential care institutions have 30 or more children or young people.  0.45% of Portuguese children and young people were in care institutions (Petrowski et al. 2017, 0.12% internationally, on an estimated average).  Most were adolescents (12-17 years old, 63.2%).  38% had been in foster care for more than 5 years, highlighting the difficulty in finding permanent solutions.  The most frequent reasons for the measure being applied were: neglect (52.4%), exposure to risky behavior (19.5%), and physical and/or psychological abuse (12.6%). 103  The average length of stay in foster care was 4 years and 2 months, revealing a prolonged stay, given its supposedly temporary nature.  50.8% of children in care had complex characteristics and needs.  A 25% increase in mental health problems among children and young people in care between 2022 and 2023.  Despite the profile of children and young people in care, only 2.4% were in therapeutic care.  Difficulties integrating into school and academic failure.  Actions to support autonomy and independence in life remain insignificant, representing 1.3% of the protective measures taken.  Although more than 30% of young people's plans are for autonomy and independence in life, only 7.18% have seen this life plan come to fruition.  Empowerment/autonomy apartments continue to be a residual response in the system, representing only 3.10%. From the data in Table 2, residential care is the preferred response to alternative care, with no focus on therapeutic residential care, despite the behavioral, emotional, and educational profile of children and young people, and without effective work in preparing them for and transitioning them to an autonomous and independent life. The facilities are large, accommodating many children and young people without a family environment. (try to see authors, or go with our idea). In the Portuguese context, there are two main types of residential care: non-specialized (only care and supported accommodation, without education or treatment services at home) and specialized (e.g., residential care to treat emotional and behavioral problems or independent living apartments) (ISS-IP, 2024), according to Table 3. This new type of residential care is recent in Portugal, with all residential care facilities for children and young people being readapted by the end of 2026. Table 3. Types of residential care in Portugal (Ministry of Labor, Solidarity, and Social Security, 2023) Type Description Non-specialized residential care for children intended for most children and young people, ensuring a daily living environment as close as possible to a family environment. Maximum number of children: 15 104 Specialized residential care for children for children/young people with specific needs (e.g., disabilities, mental health problems, behavioral disorders). Maximum number of children: 10 Residential support units that promote independence in life for young people preparing for adulthood, with training in personal, social, and professional skills. Maximum number of children: 7 Independence apartments for young people transitioning to adulthood, with training in skills in a real-life independent living context. Maximum number of children: 7, ideally 3 Finally, it is important to consider that the profile of children and young people in care institutions is characterized by multifaceted factors, including their backgrounds, mental health needs, and experiences that influence their placement and care environments. Research indicates that many of these young people have a history marked by adversity, including trauma and abuse. A significant proportion of children entering residential care institutions have experienced at least one traumatic event, with estimates suggesting that 40% to 80% have been victims of abuse (Briggs et al., 2012; Gordon et al., 2023). This prevalence highlights the complex psychosocial needs inherent to this population, which are often exacerbated by adverse experiences prior to placement, in a study of young people and caregivers from 29 general residential care institutions for young people in Portugal (Silva et al., 2021). In demographic terms, children placed in residential care tend to be older and face more complex challenges compared to those in foster care, with previous out-of-home placements often contributing to their current situation. Data suggest that institutional care may serve as a "failure option," particularly for young people who exhibit greater clinical severity due to their family histories (James et al., 2021; Kor et al., 2023). Transitions to residential care settings are often poorly prepared, leading to experiences of vulnerability and disconnection from normality (Kor et al., 2020). In addition, placement trajectories highlight a worrying cycle of repeated foster care failures that push these young people into residential settings (Pronk et al., 2021). Studies conducted in Portugal corroborate these data on the complex profile of children and young people in residential institutions, ranging from the prevalence and symptoms of mental health and psychological maladjustment, which are higher in residential institutions, with a higher prevalence of internalization problems. (Rodrigues, 2018; Tavares-Rodrigues, et al., 2019). 105 Hernandez, K., Barbosa-Ducharne, M., & Soares, J. (2023). What happens to children who don’t behave in residential care? A multi-informant mixed-methods study on discipline strategies. Children and Youth Services Review, 154, 107144. Hicks, L. and Sinclair, I. (2012). Residential care for social reasons, 1800-1802. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199696758.003.0237 Inácio, N. C. (2014). Um contributo para a História do Direito: Os expostos. JURISMAT, 5, 345-360. http://recil.grupolusofona.pt/jspui/bitstream/10437/6414/1/jurismat5_345360.pdf Instituto da Segurança Social, I.P. (ISS). (2019). CASA 2018 – Relatório de Caracterização Anual da Situação de Acolhimento das crianças e jovens. Lisboa: ISS-IP. ISS. (2024). CASA 2023 - Relatório de Caracterização Anual da Situação de Acolhimento das Crianças e Jovens. Lisboa: Instituto de Segurança Social [Annual Characterization Report of the Residential Care Situation of Children and Young People. Lisbon: Social Security Institute]. Retrieved from. https://www.segsocial.pt/documents/10152/13326/Relat´orio_CASA_2023/da8913ce-97e0-4b5d-ae10bf16c7a88901. James, S., Wilczek, L., Kilian, J., Timonen-Kallio, E., Bravo, A., Valle, J., … & Rigamonti, A. (2021). A comparative analysis of residential care: a five-country multiple case-design study. Child & Youth Care Forum, 51(6), 1031-1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-02109666-6 Johnson, R., Browne, K., & Hamilton‐Giachritsis, C. (2006). Young children in institutional care at risk of harm. Trauma Violence & Abuse, 7(1), 34-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838005283696 Kor, K., Fernández, E., & Spangaro, J. (2020). Interpretative phenomenological analysis of young people's lived experiences of therapeutic residential care. Child & Family Social Work, 26(1), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12792 Kor, K., Fernández, E., & Spangaro, J. (2023). Placement matching of children and young people within out-of-home residential care: a qualitative analysis. Health & Social Care in the Community, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/7431351 Leandro, J. (2011). A Roda dos expostos. Saúde Infantil, 33(1), 13-14. Macedo, P., et al. (2020). A inclusão de crianças e jovens em situação de vulnerabilidade. Conselho Nacional de Educação. 112 Magalhães, E., Calheiros, M. M., & Antunes, C. (2018). ‘I Always Say What I Think’: a RightsBased Approach of Young People’s Psychosocial Functioning in Residential Care. Child Indicators Research, 11, 1801–1816. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-017-9511-6 Magalhães, E., Calheiros, M. M., Carvalho, H., & Pinheiro, M. (2025). Children's right to participation in residential care: A staff-based study in Portugal. Child Abuse & Neglect, 162, 107232. Magalhães, E., Calheiros, M. M., & Costa, P. (2016). To be or not to be a rights holder: Direct and indirect effects of perceived rights on psychological adjustment through group identification in care. Children and Youth Services Review, 71, 110–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.039 Magalhães, E., Silva, C. S., Ornelas, S., & Calheiros, M. M. (2021). Qualidade das relações entre profissionais e crianças e jovens em acolhimento residencial: Uma revisão em torno do seu papel protetor e terapêutico. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 269-276. Martins, E., C. (2006). A infância desprotegida portuguesa na primeira metade do século XX. Revista Infância e Juventude. ISSN 0870-6565, 4, 93-130. Martins, J. M. (2014). História da criança em Portugal: Desde D. Afonso Henriques até aos nossos dias, um olhar inédito sobre a infância. Lisboa: Edições Parsifal. Ministry of Labor, Solidarity and Social Security (2023). Ordinance No. 450/2023, de 22 de dezembro, Republic Diary: Series I, n◦ 246. Estabelece o regime de organização, funcionamento e instalação das casas de acolhimento para crianças e jovens. https://diariodarepublica.pt/dr/detalhe/portaria/450-2023-812826259 Montserrat, C., Delgado, P., Garcia-Molsosa, M., Carvalho, J. M. S., & Llosada-Gistau, J. (2021). Young Teenagers’ Views Regarding Residential Care in Portugal and Spain: A Qualitative Study. Social Sciences, 10(2), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10020066 Mota, C. P., & Matos, P. M. (2021). Reklações significativas e resiliência em crianças e jovens em acolhimento residencial. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 71-81. Negrão, M., Veiga, E., Rocha, J. C., & Clemente, I. (2024). Trauma–sensitive residential care: Perspectives of Portuguese professionals to spark change. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 41(4), 465-481. 113 Oliveira, M. S., & Pimentel, M. H. (2021). Intervenção com famílias: modelos e práticas. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 255-267. Peixoto, C. S. (2018). Infância e Juventude, Direitos Humanos e Adversidade – Contextos e Práticas. In M. Oliveira e P. Pinto (Ed.), Crime, violência e interdisciplinaridade: guia para a intervenção em múltiplos contextos (pp. 15-32). Porto: Mais Leituras. Pimentel, M. H. (2021). Dia a dia na casa: Ambiente, planeamento, ritmos, rotinas e rituais. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 255-267. Pinheiro, M., Magalhães, E., Calheiros, M., & Macdonald, D. (2024). Quality of relationships between residential staff and youth: A systematic review. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal, 41, 561–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-022-00909-6 Petrowski, N., Cappa, C., & Gross, P. (2017). Estimating the number of children in formal alternative care: Challenges and results. Child Abuse & Neglect, 70, 388–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.11.026 Pezzot-Pearce, T. D., & Pearce, J. (2004). Parenting Assessments in Child Welfare Cases: A Practical Guide. University of Toronto Press: JSTOR. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/9781442678255. Pollard, E. and Lee, P.D. (2003) Child Well-Being: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Social Indicators Research, 61, 59-78.http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1021284215801 Pronk, S., Germie, V., Kuiper, C., Popma, A., Jan, S., & Mulder, E. (2021). Differences between adolescents in secure residential care and non-residential educational facilities. Journal of Social Work, 22(3), 779-803. https://doi.org/10.1177/14680173211009712 Raj, S. and Raval, V. (2013). Residential child care in malaysia: an exploratory qualitative study of caregiver–child interactions. International Perspectives in Psychology, 2(3), 194-206. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032751 Ribeiro, P. (2023). Os programas de preparação de autonomia que concretizam a autonomização dos jovens em acolhimento. [master's thesis] Riemersma, Y. (2025). A home-like environment?: exploring the Experiences of Young People in Traditional and Alternative Residential Youth Care: Perspectives of Youth, Parents, and Professionals. Rodrigues, S. (2019). A qualidade do acolhimento residencial em Portugal: Avaliação da adequação dos serviços às necessidades das crianças e jovens institucionalizados. (Doctoral dissertation, Universidade do Porto). Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10216/119950 114 Rodrigues, S. N. (2021). Saúde mental na infância e adolescência em contexto residencial. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 99-106. Rodrigues, S. (2021). Suopervisão em acolhimento residencial: Farol, caminho, escada, rede e semente. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 339-348. Rodrigues, S. & Barbosa-Ducharne, M. (2017). Residential child and youth care in Portugal: Current challenges and the need for quality care assessment. In T. Islam, & L. Fulcher (Ed.), Residential child and youth care in a developing world European perspectives (pp. 356-366). Cape Town: The CYC-Net Press. Rodrigues, S., Barbosa-Ducharne, M., & Del Valle, J. F. (2013). La calidad del acogimiento residencial en Portugal y el ejemplo de la evolución española. Papeles del Psicólogo, 34(1), 11-22. Rogado, T. (2009). Processos Judiciais Intervenção com Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Revista Pretextos, 34, 18-19. Rosa, D. S. (2010). Adoção: O berço da adoção, histórias de amor. Cadernos solidários da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa, 2, Lisboa: SCML. Rovers, A., Blankestein, A., Van der Rijken, R., Scholte, R., & Lange, A. (2019). Treatmentoutcomes of a shortened secure residential stay combined with multisystemic therapy:A pilot study. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(15–16), 2654–2671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19856521 Sá, G. (1997). Quando o risco se faz pobre: Misericórdias, caridade e poder no império português (1500-1800). Lisboa: Comissão Nacional para as Comemorações dos Descobrimentos Portugueses. Silva, C. S., Calheiros, M. M., Carvalho, H., & Magalhães, E. (2022). Organizational social context and psychopathology of youth in residential care: The intervening role of youth– caregiver relationship quality. Applied Psychology, 71(2), 564-586. Simões, M. H. (2011). Crianças e jovens em perigo: Cuidado e responsabilidade no acolhimento institucional. In T. S. Pereira & G. Oliveira (Coord.), Cuidado e responsabilidade (pp. 202-221). S. Paulo: Editora Atlas. Sindi, I. (2022). Participation of children in residential care. In Professional practice in child protection and the child’s right to participate (pp. 89–101). Routledge. Sousa, L. (2005). Famílias Multiproblemáticas. Coimbra: Quarteto. 115 Tavares-Rodrigues, A., González-García, C., Bravo, A., & F. Del Valle, J. (2019). Needs assessment of youths in residential child care in Portugal/Evaluación de necesidades de jóvenes en acogimiento residencial en Portugal/Evaluación de necesidades de jóvenes en acogimiento residencial en Portugal. International Journal of Social Psychology, 34(2), 354382. The Scottish Government. (2021). National Guidance for Child Protection in Scotland 2021: Version 1.0. Edinburgh: The Scottish Government. Tomlinson, P. (2021). Transition planning: Leaving a residential care home. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 217-232. UNICEF (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: a comparative overview. New York: United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). UNICEF. (2024). Pathways to better protection Taking stock of the situation of children in alternative care in Europe and Central Asia. https://www.unicef.org/eca/reports/pathwaysbetter-protection Veiga, E., Negrão, M. & Rocha, J. (2021). Cuidados sensíveis ao trauma no acolhimento residencial: Um referencial para avaliação da qualidade e promoção da mudança em Portugal. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 83-97. Vicente, B., & Lopes, R. (2021). Autonomia enquanto processo, independência como resultado. Carlos Peixoto e Madalena Oliveira (coords.), Acolhimento Residencial de Crianças e Jovens em Perigo. Conceitos, Prática e Intervenção, Lisboa, Pactor, 233-242. Vilaverde, M. (2000). Factores de Risco e Factores Protectores em Crianças Vítimas de Maustratos a Viver em Instituições. (Dissertação de mestrado). Universidade do Minho. Whittaker, J. W., Del Valle, J. F., & Holmes, L. (Eds.) (2015). Therapeutic residential care for children and youth: Developing evidence-based international practice. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. 116 ITALY 117 Learning to “Be No One”: Freedom, Responsibility, and Residential Care in the Italian Juvenile Justice System Faustino Rizzo Faustino Rizzo40, Ph.D. in Reggio Childhood Studies, is a Research Fellow at the Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), University of Padua. His research focuses on family education, childhood vulnerability, and the promotion of children’s rights within justice and welfare systems. He collaborates with the national P.I.P.P.I. program and international research group. Keywords residential care; juvenile justice; aftercare; mafia-affected families; child-friendly justice; Italy. Abstract This contribution examines the evolving Zeitgeist of Italy’s juvenile justice, which has shifted from a corrective–institutional paradigm to an educational, relational, and community-based approach. Drawing on doctoral research (Rizzo, 2024), it presents the case of “Stefano” (2012), an early and inaugural case within the Reggio Calabria Juvenile Court’s trajectory that later informed the program Liberi di scegliere. The intervention combined a temporary limitation of parental responsibility with out-of-region residential care, coordinated by the Juvenile Social Services Office. Through qualitative analysis of court decrees, social work files, and interviews, the article shows how residential care can operate as a pedagogical suspension: a protected space where adolescents experience recognition, responsibility, and freedom beyond inherited affiliations. The paper argues that residential care in mafia-affected contexts must be embedded in long-term, inter-institutional ecosystems that sustain education, family work, and community ties beyond removal from risk. Only then can the right to “choose differently” be maintained after leaving care. Introduction Over the past two decades, the Italian juvenile justice system has progressively moved beyond a predominantly corrective and institutional paradigm toward an educational, 40 Contact: University of Padua, Department of Philosophy, Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology (FISPPA), Via Beato Pellegrino 28, 35137 Padova (Italy). Email: [email protected] 118 relational, and community-based approach, centred on the protection of rights and the personalization of interventions. The legal framework established by Presidential Decree No. 448/1988 — and, in particular, the measure of messa alla prova (probation with extinction of the offence upon positive outcome) — institutionalized educational and restorative aims within the justice process (Ministry of Justice, 2018; 2023). The Guidelines of the Department for Juvenile Justice further strengthened integration with local welfare and probation services, orienting care practices toward a systemic and interinstitutional logic (Ministry of Justice, 2017). At the European level, the Council of Europe Guidelines on Child-Friendly Justice (2010) promote non-custodial measures, the participation of minors, and educational continuity. Yet, this legal and cultural evolution in Italy is rooted in a deeper process of renewal that began in the late 1980s. A key figure in this transformation was Judge Franco Occhiogrosso, for many years President of the Juvenile Court of Bari. Occhiogrosso was among the first to draw attention to the need for an intervention capable of going beyond mere repression, opening spaces of protection, listening, and opportunity for children and adolescents growing up in environments of widespread illegality — those whom, in one of his writings, he described as “the children of the mafia” (Occhiogrosso, 1993): minors whose biographies risk being marked by violence and criminal belonging before they can exercise any real choice of their own. Occhiogrosso (2004; 2010) developed the notion of a “gentle law” (diritto mite), a form of justice grounded not in imposition or force but in relationship, listening, and participation. Gentleness thus becomes a political and cultural principle — a social virtue expressed in the capacity to dwell within complexity, to resist the logic of rupture, to seek shared solutions, and to promote affective continuity and educational co-responsibility. Although not in a direct line of continuity, Occhiogrosso’s reflections can be considered a cultural antecedent to the more recent judicial experiments addressing young people from families involved in organized crime. His work anticipated the idea of a justice system able to intervene not only on deviant behaviour but also on the relational and social fabric that sustains it. More than twenty years later, in 2012, Judge Roberto Di Bella, then President of the Juvenile Court of Reggio Calabria, made this need explicit by introducing an intergenerational and systemic reading of educational risk within mafia-affected families. This approach marked a paradigm shift in judicial practice — from an intervention focused on the individual offender to one that interrogates collective responsibilities in the intergenerational transmission of belonging, identity, and criminal culture. The case study of “Stefano” — a pseudonym — presented in this chapter represents the first experience, dating back to 2012, in which the Juvenile Court of Reggio Calabria transformed such an intuition into concrete judicial and educational action. Confronted with a context deemed at high risk due to strong family ties with organized crime, the 119 Court ordered the boy’s placement in a residential community outside the region and the temporary suspension of parental authority. The adolescent, already known to social services for various problematic behaviours, had grown up in a family history deeply intertwined with the culture of the ’ndrangheta. Stefano’s story thus marks a turning point: for the first time, the Juvenile Court of Reggio Calabria recognized the possibility of interrupting a life trajectory shaped by the intergenerational repetition of deviance, interpreting judicial intervention not as a punitive response but as an opportunity for protection and emancipation. The measure, grounded in a logic of care rather than sanction, sought to break the cultural reproduction of mafiosity, offering the boy an alternative educational and relational horizon — a time of suspension from his inherited destiny. From this pioneering experience emerged, in the years that followed, the project Liberi di scegliere (“Free to Choose”), an interinstitutional laboratory of innovation developed within the juvenile justice system. Consolidated through formal agreements among the judiciary, social services, civil society organizations, and universities, the project helped make visible a previously unseen childhood: that of children growing up in mafia-affected families, exposed from early infancy to forms of forced loyalty, symbolic violence, and educational marginality. The analysis of cases and interventions gathered through this experience progressively led to the elaboration of the concept of “mafia vulnerability” (vulnerabilità mafiosa) (Rizzo & Milani, 2024) — a specific manifestation of family vulnerability that allows for understanding these children’s condition not merely as individual risk of deviance but as the outcome of a family and territorial system that reproduces belonging, identity, and criminal legitimacy. Adopting this perspective means viewing the reality of the mafia through the lens of children’s rights, shifting attention from the criminal act to the social, educational, and relational structures that make it possible and sustain it over time. To consider the mafia not only as a criminal issue but also as a social problem is to recognize it as a cultural organization that shapes identities, languages, affective bonds, and systems of loyalty from early childhood. From this standpoint, children and adolescents growing up in contexts of mafia vulnerability must not be read as “the sons and daughters of” or as potential offenders, but as rights-bearing subjects, entitled to the same guarantees of protection, education, and participation affirmed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) and by the Council of Europe Guidelines on Child-Friendly Justice (2010). Looking through the prism of rights therefore means making visible what the culture of the mafia tends to naturalize or conceal: the systemic violation of the right to freedom, to childhood, and to choice. 120 2. Methodology 2.1 Epistemological Approach The reflection presented in this contribution is grounded in the findings of the doctoral research Challenges and Perspectives in the Protection of Children’s Rights in Mafia-Affected Contexts: An Analysis of Protective Measures Implemented by the Juvenile Court of Reggio Calabria (2012–2020) (Rizzo, 2024). The study was carried out within the Reggio Childhood Studies Doctoral School at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, and conducted at the Research and Intervention Laboratory on Family Education (LabRIEF), University of Padua. Since 2011, LabRIEF has promoted, in collaboration with the Italian Ministry of Labour and Social Policies and with the Territorial Social Areas—the local administrative entities that coordinate municipal social services—the Program of Intervention for the Prevention of Institutionalization (P.I.P.P.I.). The acronym P.I.P.P.I. evokes the “tremendously strong” girl of Villa Villekulla, Pippi Longstocking (Lindgren, 1945), who has become a metaphor for the resources that every child carries within, even in the most difficult circumstances, and for the responsibility of adults to recognize and nurture them. Designed to innovate and harmonize intervention practices targeting families in situations of vulnerability, P.I.P.P.I. aims to prevent the risk of child maltreatment and out-of-home placement by strengthening parental competences and family and community support networks (Milani, 2022). The program is based on an integrated care model that brings together social, health, and educational services along with the local community, grounded in an ecological and rights-based approach in which children and families are regarded as active participants in the helping process. Structured as a public laboratory of research, training, and innovation, P.I.P.P.I. fosters an ongoing dialogue between policies, practices, and knowledge through multi-level governance that connects the Ministry, regional administrations, local authorities, and academia, with the aim of building shared and evaluable models of intervention. Since 2022, P.I.P.P.I. has been officially recognized as one of Italy’s Essential Levels of Social Services (LEPS) dedicated to the prevention of family separation, becoming a national reference point in the promotion of children’s rights and parental support. Within this epistemological framework — relational, systemic, and rights-based — the doctoral research applied the same perspective to the contexts defined during the study as “mafia vulnerability.” This concept was developed to describe conditions in which the pervasive influence of mafia culture acts as an educational and social risk factor, requiring intervention strategies that integrate protection, promotion, and prevention of the rights of children and their families. 121 to question his aspirations, to imagine different possibilities, and to build a language to speak about himself. In parallel, the professional team worked with Stefano’s mother through a parental support pathway in collaboration with local social services. The goal was to sustain a process of mutual recognition — between mother and son, between family and institutions — and to foster a gradual re-appropriation of her educational role. From “Being Someone” to “Being No One” The intervention as a whole was not merely aimed at removing Stefano from risk but at creating an alternative experiential space where he could explore the meanings of freedom, responsibility, and belonging. In phenomenological-pedagogical terms, this can be read as a suspension of the given world — a time and space to look at oneself and one’s possibilities from another perspective, to experiment outside inherited roles and destinies. “When [Stefano] was in Calabria, walking down the street, he was somebody — the son of, the brother of. A kind of young prince. Outside, he was just like everyone else. It wasn’t easy at first; he was worried, he had to draw on his own resources. We worked on this — on being no one. And on how liberating it can be to learn that.” (AS) The social worker’s words capture the essence of the intervention: accompanying Stefano through a journey from “being someone” to “being no one.” In his original environment, being someone meant holding a recognized place within a symbolic hierarchy rooted in family name, loyalty, and honor — where personal identity was inseparable from belonging. Removing him from that context was not merely a protective measure, but an educational gesture: creating a space where he could experience existing as a subject, not as an heir to a name. In the new environment, the educational team worked daily to ensure that this transition was lived as an experience of freedom rather than loss. Being no one became the guiding thread of his journey — not emptiness, but a fertile suspension of inherited roles, a space in which to renegotiate his own way of being in the world. In phenomenological terms, this experience can be understood as a form of epoché (Husserl, 1931/2017): the act of bracketing the given world to open oneself to a new horizon of meanings and possibilities. Education to Legality and Reflective Responsibility During his time in the community, Stefano was able to live experiences similar to those of his peers — attending school, playing sports, working in teams — and to engage in relationships based on reciprocity and trust, far removed from the dynamics of power and belonging that had shaped his childhood. 128 Building on Freire (1970), such experiences represent not merely the discovery of what exists, but an opening to the possible — a different way of inhabiting reality, recognizing oneself, and exercising freedom. As part of this process, Stefano was granted access to one of the key instruments of the Italian juvenile justice system: the messa alla prova (“probation”) provided under Article 28 of Presidential Decree 448/1988. This measure offers an alternative to punishment, based on the idea that responsibility is not built through coercion but through reflective engagement in change. The Court suspends the trial and entrusts the minor with a programme of reparation and personal development, designed jointly with social services to promote his growth. “Stefano was placed in a youth center, where he distinguished himself by his commitment and his ability to integrate positively into the environment.” (AS, 7:45, ¶25) “He began volunteering in a youth center for children in a disadvantaged area, taking advantage of the opportunity to interact with children who, unlike adults, express emotions and affection more directly.” (Psi, 8:21, ¶28) Through these experiences, Stefano learned to cultivate relationships grounded in mutual recognition and trust. The probation pathway thus became a laboratory of citizenship, an opportunity to learn freedom as a practice of responsibility and relationship. At the end of the probation period, the Court declared the offence extinguished, acknowledging the positive outcome of the programme and Stefano’s personal growth. Yet, upon returning to his home community as an adult, the fragility of that achievement soon became apparent. Despite having experienced freedom and recognition, Stefano had to face the enduring weight of his family name and the symbolic density of a social environment in which every relationship reactivated memories of belonging. In the first years after his return, he built an apparently stable life — he married, found employment, and became a father. However, several years later, he was involved in an anti-mafia operation and arrested. 4. Conclusions Although Stefano’s arrest inevitably raised questions about the effectiveness and limits of educational intervention, his story cannot be read as one of failure. As Raffaele Laporta reminds us, “accepting a wager on the success of education is difficult, but the wager must always be made” (L’assoluto pedagogico. Saggio sulla libertà in educazione, 1996, p. 15). Stefano’s experience represents the beginning of a collective process of discovery and learning — for the juvenile judiciary, for social services, and for the broader civic community — which has helped to make visible a childhood long rendered invisible: that of children growing up within families affected by mafia-related vulnerability. Through his case, the institutional gaze gradually shifted — from the offence to the context, from 129 individual guilt to the web of relationships, learning processes, and loyalties that shape life trajectories. Stefano’s story marked a turning point. It demonstrated that judicial intervention can become an educational act, capable of holding together justice, protection, and care — and that geographical distance can take on the value of symbolic distance, a space of freedom in which to begin reimagining oneself beyond inherited destiny. From this awareness emerged, in the following years, the idea of a systemic intervention — Liberi di scegliere (Free to Choose) — which transformed the intuition born with Stefano’s case into a nationally coordinated strategy, implemented through inter-institutional agreements among the juvenile judiciary, social services, law enforcement, civil society organizations, and universities. The Liberi di scegliere project was established with the aim of “ensuring a concrete alternative life path for minors from families involved in organized crime contexts, or who are victims of mafia-related violence, and for family members who choose to dissociate themselves from criminal logics.”¹ References Bertolini, P. (1988). L’esistere pedagogico: Ragioni e limiti di una pedagogia come scienza fenomenologicamente fondata. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Bertolini, P., & Caronia, L. (2015). Ragazzi difficili: Pedagogia interpretativa e linee di intervento. Firenze: La Nuova Italia. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Council of Europe. (2010). Guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on child-friendly justice. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Di Bella, R., & Surace, G. M. P. (2019). Il progetto Liberi di scegliere: La tutela dei minori di ’ndrangheta nella prassi giudiziaria del Tribunale per i minorenni di Reggio Calabria. Soveria Mannelli (CZ): Rubbettino. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogia degli oppressi. Torino: EGA. Husserl, E. (1961). La crisi delle scienze europee e la fenomenologia trascendentale: Introduzione alla filosofia fenomenologica. Milano: Il Saggiatore. Laporta, R. (1996). L’assoluto pedagogico: Saggio sulla libertà in educazione. Roma-Bari: Laterza. 130 Lindgren, A. (1945). Pippi Långstrump [Pippi Longstocking]. Stockholm: Rabén & Sjögren. Milani, P. (Ed.). (2022a). Il quaderno di P.I.P.P.I.: Teorie, metodo e strumenti del Programma di intervento per la prevenzione dell’istituzionalizzazione – LEPS Prevenzione dell’allontanamento familiare. Padova: Padova University Press. Milani, P., & Rizzo, F. (2024). Sfide pedagogiche nei processi di cura e protezione dei diritti dei bambini e dei genitori che vivono in contesti segnati dalla cultura mafiosa. In V. Rossini, A. Rubini, & V. Balzano (Eds.), La ricerca storico-pedagogica tra contesti educativi e sfide sociali: Studi in onore di Giuseppe Elia (pp. 336–347). Lecce: Pensa MultiMedia. Ministry of Justice. (2017). Linee di indirizzo per il sistema della giustizia minorile e di comunità. Rome: Dipartimento per la Giustizia Minorile e di Comunità. Ministry of Justice. (2018). D.P.R. 448/1988: Disposizioni sul processo penale a carico di imputati minorenni. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato. Ministry of Justice. (2023). Report on juvenile justice and educational measures in Italy. Rome: Dipartimento per la Giustizia Minorile e di Comunità. Occhiogrosso, F. (Ed.). (1993). Ragazzi della mafia: Storie di criminalità e contesti minorili, voci dal carcere, le reazioni e i sentimenti, i ruoli e le proposte. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Occhiogrosso, F. (2009). Manifesto per una giustizia minorile mite. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rizzo, F. (2024). Sfide e prospettive nella tutela dei diritti dell’infanzia in contesti mafiosi: Un’analisi delle misure di protezione avviate dal Tribunale per i Minorenni di Reggio Calabria (2012–2020) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia]. Séraphin, G. (2022). Le regard situant: Épistémologie de la recherche en sciences humaines et sociales. Paris: L’Harmattan. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Walgrave, L. (2011). Restorative justice and the law. London: Routledge. Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books. 131 CZECH REPUBLIC 132 Child Protection Reform in the Czech Republic: Progress, Challenges, and Social Work Implications Alexandra Petrů Mgr. Alexandra Petrů41, PhD., works at the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem. Her main professional interests include school social work, supervision, and crisis intervention. She earned her Ph.D. in Applied Economics and Administration from Jan Evangelista Purkyně University and a Master’s degree in Supervision and Management in Social and Health Organizations from Charles University. She has experience in crisis intervention, social work, and education. Currently, she directs the UJEP Social Clinic and provides supervision in social work, justice, and education. Keywords child protection, foster care, family support, social work, deinstitutionalisation, traumainformed, policy reform, education system Abstract OBJECTIVES: The article analyses the transformation of the Czech child protection system from an institutional model to a familyand community-based approach. It examines key reforms, persistent barriers, and the effectiveness of methods supporting the deinstitutionalisation process. THEORETICAL BASE: The study draws on theories of social policy, child welfare reform, and the deinstitutionalisation of care systems. It applies a rights-based perspective grounded in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children. METHODS: A qualitative analytical approach was used, combining document analysis of Czech legislation, strategic frameworks, and EU policy instruments with secondary data from ministries and research institutions. Comparative references to other European countries provide contextual insight. OUTCOMES: Czech child protection has achieved major progress, including the abolition of infant homes and strengthened support for foster care. However, regional disparities, insufficient long-term foster capacity, and fragmented governance continue to limit the full implementation of family-based care. SOCIAL WORK IMPLICATIONS: The findings underline the central role of social work in promoting prevention, family support, and trauma-informed, participatory practice. Sustainable change requires stable funding, 41 Contact: Department of Social Work, Faculty of Social and Economic Studies, Jan Evangelista Purkyně University, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic; e-mail: [email protected] 133 professional education, and coordinated cooperation among social, health, and educational sectors. 1. Introduction - From Institutional Tradition to Systemic Transformation Institutional care for children in the Czech Republic has undergone profound changes over the past decades, reflecting the country’s broader social, political, and legislative shifts. Historically, the Czech child protection system was heavily institutionalised, shaped by the belief that children deprived of parental care were best raised in state-run facilities. During the socialist period (1948–1989), institutional upbringing was presented as a “safe environment,” while family-based alternatives remained marginal. However, pioneering research by Langmeier and Matějček (1974) already demonstrated that prolonged institutionalisation leads to psychological deprivation, impaired emotional attachment, and difficulties in social development. The fall of the socialist regime in 1989 brought a conceptual turning point. The ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989/1991) introduced the principle of the best interests of the child and the right to grow up in a family environment. This international commitment triggered far-reaching reforms. The Child Protection Act (1999) established the framework for preventive work and substitute family care, while the Act on Institutional and Protective Upbringing (2002) defined the network of residential facilities for children and young people (MPSV, 1999; MŠMT, 2002). From the early 2000s onwards, deinstitutionalisation became an explicit national goal. The National Strategy for the Protection of Children’s Rights 2012–2018 (Right to Childhood) called for the progressive replacement of institutional care with family-based forms (MPSV, 2012). Yet the number of children in institutional facilities remained around 7,000, prompting repeated criticism from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 2011). Legislative changes between 2021 and 2024 therefore represented a critical shift: they strengthened foster care, abolished infant homes, and—effective 1 January 2025— introduced a legal ban on placing children under three years of age in institutional care (MPSV, 2024a, 2024b). By 2028, the age limit is expected to rise to seven. These steps place the Czech Republic among European countries that have legally banned institutional care for the youngest children, alongside states such as Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands. Nevertheless, transformation is far from complete. The system remains fragmented across three ministries—the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT), the Ministry of Health (MZ), and the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPSV). This administrative division has long hindered consistent policy development, data collection, 134 and coordination (CRC, 2021). The persistence of these structural barriers reveals that legal reform alone cannot ensure the transition to a fully family-based model. In broader European comparison, the Czech Republic has followed a trajectory similar to other post-communist countries, where institutional care traditionally played a dominant role. Countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, and Poland have faced comparable difficulties in recruiting long-term foster families and developing community-based services. In contrast, Western European states gradually restructured their systems earlier, shifting investment from large institutions to preventive family support (Delap & Mann, 2022). This contrast highlights both the progress achieved and the distance still remaining for Czech child protection to align with international standards. 2. Current Orientation of the Child Protection System Today, Czech child protection is guided by the principle that every child should grow up in a safe and stable family environment, and that institutional placement must remain a measure of last resort. This principle is embedded in national legislation and strategic documents, as well as in international frameworks such as the UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (UN, 2010) and the European Child Guarantee (MPSV, 2022). Together, these instruments emphasise the right of every child to continuity, identity, and meaningful relationships. At the practical level, the system combines legislative reform with preventive and familysupport measures. Short-term (emergency) foster care has become the main mechanism for immediate placements, while long-term foster care ensures stability for children who cannot return to their biological families. Strategic frameworks—including the National Strategy for the Protection of Children’s Rights 2021–2029 (MPSV, 2020) emphasise the prevention of removals, the coordination of social, health, and educational services, and the promotion of child participation through Individual Child Protection Plans (IPOD). The current transformation also reflects a gradual cultural shift within Czech society: from viewing the state as the primary caregiver to recognising families and communities as key actors in children’s well-being. Child participation is increasingly integrated into decisionmaking, not only through individual planning but also via systemic initiatives such as consultations with children in care. This evolution mirrors European trends towards participatory, child-centred practice. Despite these advancements, several challenges persist—particularly in ensuring equal access to family-based care across regions, addressing the overrepresentation of Roma children, and securing sufficient capacity for long-term foster placements. These issues form the focus of the following section. Although legislative and conceptual reforms have laid a strong foundation, the Czech child protection system continues to face deep-rooted social and structural barriers. The next 135 chapter examines these persistent challenges that hinder the full realisation of a familybased care model. 3. Challenges Despite extensive legislative reforms and international pressure, the Czech child protection system continues to face deeply rooted problems that slow down its transformation. According to the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT, 2024), approximately 6400 children were placed in children’s homes, children’s homes with schools, educational institutions, and diagnostic centres during the 2023/24 school year — roughly the same number as in previous years.This persistently high rate of placements indicates that preventive measures and family support mechanisms remain insufficient. 3.1 Socio-economic factors and housing deprivation The main reasons for children entering substitute care continue to reflect complex social and economic circumstances. In children’s homes, neglect and housing deprivation are among the most common causes, while in facilities for children with behavioural difficulties, serious family conflicts and school-related problems dominate (MŠMT, 2023). The ongoing link between poverty, housing instability, and the removal of children from their families remains one of the most sensitive issues in Czech child protection. Under Czech law, a child cannot be removed solely due to inadequate housing conditions. The Act on Social and Legal Protection of Children (No. 359/1999 Coll.) defines the state’s duty to safeguard the best interests of the child but does not recognise housing deprivation as a legitimate ground for removal. This interpretation has been repeatedly confirmed by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, which stated that “insufficient social and housing conditions alone, without prior assistance offered to the family, cannot justify the removal of a child” (e.g., rulings II ÚS 2546/10 and III ÚS 3146/21). Nevertheless, research and field reports show that loss of housing or eviction often acts as a trigger for initiating child protection proceedings (FRA, 2024). This discrepancy between the legal framework and practical implementation corresponds with international research findings showing that in Central and Eastern Europe, povertyor housing-related removals still occur despite formal legal safeguards (Eurochild, 2015; Better Care Network, 2017; FRA, 2024). 3.2 Overrepresentation of children of Roma ethnicity A long-standing challenge within the Czech system is the overrepresentation of children of Roma ethnicity in institutional care. According to data from the Ministry of Education (MŠMT, 2023) and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA, 2020), children of Roma ethnicity account for approximately half of all children placed in 136 institutional care. Available national data indicate that children of Roma origin have a lower probability of being placed in family-based foster care, which perpetuates a cycle of institutionalisation (FRA, 2020; FRA, 2024). This imbalance reflects structural inequalities, potential bias in placement decisions, and the limited availability of foster carers willing or prepared to care for children of diverse ethnic backgrounds. 3.3 Sibling groups and foster-care capacity Another significant issue concerns sibling groups. More than 40 percent of children in children’s homes are placed with three or more siblings, and groups of four or more represent up to one-third of placements in some regions (VÚPSV, 2024). Maintaining sibling bonds is a fundamental principle of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989/1991), yet it remains difficult to uphold in practice.Foster care rarely has the capacity to accommodate large sibling groups, both for organisational and financial reasons. The shortage of long-term foster carers exacerbates this problem.Although the 2021 reform increased both financial and methodological support, most newly recruited carers provide short-term (transitional) foster care, while stable families willing to offer long-term placements remain scarce.Limited long-term capacity hinders the shift toward a fully family-based model and often results in repeated institutionalisation. 3.4 Case Example: Sibling Group from the Ústí nad Labem Region In early 2024, a group of four children of Roma ethnicity, aged between two and ten, was placed in foster care for a transitional period after their family lost housing due to rent arrears. The local child-protection authority (OSPOD) attempted to secure a joint placement, but no foster family in the region could accommodate all four siblings. Two children were therefore placed together in transitional foster care, while the remaining two were transferred to a children’s home almost 100 kilometres away due to a shortage of available places nearby. Although social workers facilitated regular contact, the separation caused significant distress, particularly for the eldest sister, who began showing signs of anxiety and sleep difficulties. Subsequent efforts to secure long-term foster care failed because of limited regional capacity and the shortage of suitably prepared families. The case highlights several systemic challenges in Czech child protection: the scarcity of long-term foster carers, the difficulty of keeping sibling groups together, and persistent regional disparities in the availability of family-based care. It also illustrates how social exclusion and housing insecurity can indirectly lead to child removal, even though inadequate housing alone should never justify such action. 137 shortage of long-term foster carers, and weak interministerial coordination show that transformation is far from complete. To ensure sustainable progress, legislative change must be accompanied by practical investment—so that every child, regardless of region or background, can grow up in a safe, stable, and supportive family environment. 6 Methods and Concepts in Practice The ongoing transformation of the Czech child protection system is not only a matter of legislative reform but also of how key principles and methods are applied in practice. This chapter outlines the main approaches currently used in child protection, showing how theoretical concepts—such as prevention, participation, trauma-informed approaches, and resilience—are translated into everyday professional work with children and families. 6.1 From institutional to community-based practice The transition from institutional care to communityand family-based services requires a fundamental shift in professional culture. Social workers and other practitioners are encouraged to work preventively, engage families as partners, and coordinate services across sectors. In the Czech context, community-based practice means delivering interventions as close as possible to the child’s natural environment. Instead of institutional placement, professionals focus on strengthening family capacities—through counselling, family therapy, housing assistance, or educational support. The National Strategy for the Protection of Children’s Rights 2021–2029 defines this approach as a “whole-family perspective,” which seeks to address not only the child’s symptoms but also the social conditions that shape family functioning. 6.2 Trauma-informed approaches Trauma-informed approaches have become an increasingly recognised framework in Czech social and educational practice. They are based on the understanding that many children entering the child protection system have experienced neglect, abuse, or traumatic separation from their parents. Education and training for child protection professionals now increasingly integrate trauma-informed principles that emphasise emotional safety, predictable routines, and stable relationships. In practice, this approach involves moving away from punitive responses toward stabilisation, trust, and recovery. Trauma-informed work also helps professionals manage the emotional demands of their roles and reduce the risk of burnout or secondary trauma—challenges that remain significant in the field of child protection. 144 6.3 Family Group Conferences and participatory methods Participatory methods have emerged as a response to the traditionally top-down nature of decision-making in child protection. Among these, Family Group Conferences (FGCs) play a key role. They aim to empower families to identify their own solutions while professionals act as facilitators rather than decision-makers. FGCs have been officially recommended by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs and have demonstrated their value in improving cooperation between families and services, reducing the likelihood of child removal, and strengthening kinship ties. Other participatory tools, such as Individual Child Protection Plans (IPOD), ensure that children’s voices are included in decisions concerning placement, education, and family contact. Although implementation still varies across regions, the principle of participation has become an integral part of professional practice. 6.4 Accompaniment and support for foster carers A distinct feature of the Czech foster-care system is the legally defined mechanism of accompaniment, established under the Social Services Act No. 108/2006 Coll. Accompanying organisations provide foster carers with continuous professional support, education, counselling, and crisis intervention. Their role is to prevent placement breakdowns, assist with the child’s adaptation, and strengthen carers’ parenting skills. This system has contributed to greater stability and quality of foster placements, particularly for children with complex needs. However, regional disparities persist, as rural areas often have limited access to accompanying services. Expanding the availability of accompaniment and ensuring long-term funding remain key priorities for the sustainability of foster care as a viable alternative to institutional placement. 6.5 Family preservation and community cooperation Preventing unnecessary removals requires proactive and coordinated community responses. Several municipalities have introduced family preservation programmes that combine social work, family counselling, and housing support within multidisciplinary teams that include social workers, psychologists, teachers, and health professionals. Evaluations of these programmes show that early and flexible support can effectively prevent child removals and improve parental confidence. In this context, the ongoing preparation of the Social Housing Act, aimed at linking housing and social policy, represents an important step forward. If implemented, it could strengthen preventive measures and reduce cases where children are removed due to housing deprivation. 6.6 Resilience and empowerment approaches Contemporary approaches in social work and child protection increasingly emphasise resilience—the ability of children and families to adapt positively to adversity. In the Czech 145 context, resilience is understood not as an individual trait but as a relational process supported by a stable and responsive environment. Empowerment-oriented methods, such as strengths-based assessment and solutionfocused counselling, encourage professionals to identify family resources, promote autonomy, and work with families as partners rather than as passive clients. These approaches align with international evidence showing that resilience-and empowermentbased practice leads to better long-term outcomes for children and their families. 6.7 Summary The practical transformation of Czech child protection is progressing but remains incomplete. Trauma-informed, participatory, and resilience-based approaches have proven beneficial, yet their application is still uneven across regions. The system’s future success will depend on:  further development of community and preventive services,  stable and long-term support for foster carers,  systematic education and training of professionals, and  improved coordination between social, educational, and health sectors. Only by embedding these principles at all levels can the Czech child protection system move from reform to genuine transformation—ensuring that every child grows up in a stable, supportive, and nurturing environment. 7 Discussion and Conclusion The transformation of the Czech child protection system shows that legislative reform alone does not guarantee real change. Meaningful progress depends on how laws, principles, and methods are implemented in everyday practice, and on whether institutions can shift from a reactive model to one that actively supports families and prevents separation. Over the past two decades, the Czech Republic has made significant progress in aligning its child protection system with international standards. The abolition of infant homes, the expansion of foster care, and the introduction of a legal ban on institutional placement for children under the age of three represent clear milestones. These changes, supported by national strategies, reflect a broader European commitment to deinstitutionalisation and to the principle that every child has the right to grow up in a family environment. However, recent experience also shows that reform is a long-term and uneven process. Regional disparities remain one of the most serious challenges, as the quality and accessibility of services still depend on local resources and professional capacity. In socially disadvantaged areas, the lack of preventive and community-based support continues to 146 lead to unnecessary removals and long-term institutional placements. The persistence of these inequalities highlights the need for a systemic approach that integrates legislative, social, and housing policies within a coherent framework. 7.1 Towards a systemic and preventive model The Czech experience shows that deinstitutionalisation is not simply about closing facilities but about creating an integrated support system that prioritises prevention, early intervention, and family stability. The growing use of family preservation programmes, family group conferences, and trauma-informed approaches confirms that effective practice emerges when families are treated as active partners rather than passive recipients of help. These methods share a common foundation—they build trust, reduce coercion, and strengthen the long-term resilience of children and parents. A key lesson from the transformation so far is the importance of professional education and stable funding. Although many social workers and foster carers have adopted new approaches, their implementation remains uneven, often limited by local capacities and insufficient coordination among ministries. Building a professional culture based on trauma-informed, participatory, and resilience-oriented approaches requires sustained investment—not only in services but also in the people who deliver them. 7.2 The role of policy and intersectoral cooperation Future progress will depend on strengthening cooperation between the social, educational, and health systems. Fragmentation remains a major obstacle: each ministry uses different monitoring tools, data systems, and funding mechanisms. Establishing a unified coordinating body or a national child protection council could provide the framework needed for interministerial cooperation and accountability. Equally important is the development of housing and social policies that address the root causes of family breakdown. The forthcoming Social Housing Act represents a unique opportunity to link family and housing policies and to reduce the number of cases where poverty or eviction indirectly lead to child removal. In this sense, social policy and child protection are inseparable: supporting families also means ensuring that they have the conditions to stay together. References Agency for Social Inclusion (ASZ). 2023. Index of Social Exclusion 2023 [Index sociálního vyloučení 2023] [online]. Prague: ASZ. [Quotation date 15. 6. 2025]. Available from: https://www.socialni-zaclenovani.cz/wp-content/uploads/ASZ_zprava_ISV_2023.pdf 147 Better Care Network. 2017. Alternative Care and Deinstitutionalisation in Eastern Europe [online]. New York: BCN. [Quotation date 18. 7. 2025]. Available from: https://bettercarenetwork.org Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2011. Concluding Observations: Czech Republic [online]. Geneva: United Nations. [Quotation date 22. 5. 2025]. Available from: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&Treat yID=5&DocTypeID=5 Committee on the Rights of the Child. 2021. Concluding Observations on the Combined Fifth and Sixth Periodic Reports of Czechia (CRC/C/CZE/CO/5-6) [online]. Geneva: United Nations. [Quotation date 27. 6. 2025]. Available from: https://docs.un.org/en/CRC/C/CZE/CO/5-6 Council of the European Union. 2021. Council Recommendation (EU) 2021/1004 of 14 June 2021 establishing a European Child Guarantee [online]. Brussels: Council of the EU. [Quotation date 25. 10. 2025]. Available from: https://eurlex.europa.eu/eli/reco/2021/1004/oj Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 2011. Judgment No. II ÚS 2546/10 of 6 September 2011 [Nález Ústavního soudu sp. zn. II. ÚS 2546/10 ze dne 6. září 2011] [online]. Brno: Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. [Quotation date 25 October 2025]. Available from: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/uscr/ii-us-2546-10-2 Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. 2022. Judgment No. III ÚS 3146/21 of 13 September 2022 [Nález Ústavního soudu sp. zn. III. ÚS 3146/21 ze dne 13. září 2022] [online]. Brno: Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic. [Quotation date 25 October 2025]. Available from: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/uscr/iii-us-3146-21-2 Delap, E., & Mann, G. 2022. Kinship Care – Position Paper [online]. London: Family for Every Child. [Quotation date 12. 7. 2025]. Available from: https://familyforeverychild.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Kinship-care-Positionpaper.pdf Eurochild. 2015. Opening Doors for Europe’s Children: Deinstitutionalisation and Quality Alternative Care in Europe [online]. Brussels: Eurochild. [Quotation date 29 May 2025]. Available from: https://eurochild.org/uploads/2021/02/Opening-Doors-Final-Report.pdf Eurochild. 2020. Deinstitutionalisation in Europe: Myth Buster [online]. Brussels: Eurochild. [Quotation date 5. 8. 2025]. Available from: https://eurochild.org/uploads/2022/01/DI_Myth_Buster_web_use.pdf 148 European Commission. 2021. EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child [online]. Brussels: European Commission. [Quotation date 3. 6. 2025]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/rights-child_en European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2024. Mapping Child Protection Systems in the EU – Update 2023 [online]. Vienna: FRA. [Quotation date 15. 5. 2025]. Available from: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/cz_-_report__mapping_child_protection_systems_-_2023.pdf European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2020. Roma and Travellers in Six Countries – Roma and Travellers Survey 2019 [online]. Vienna: FRA. [Quotation date 25. 10. 2025]. Available from: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-romatravellers-six-countries_en.pdf Farmer, E. M. Z., Burns, B. J., Dubs, M. S., & Thompson, S. 2010. Enhancing “Usual Practice” Treatment Foster Care: Findings from a Randomized Trial to Improve Youth Outcomes [online]. Psychiatric Services, 61(6), 569–574. [Quotation date 22. 7. 2025]. Available from: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2939740/ Herczog, M. 2024. The Perspectives of Family Foster Care in the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 9(1), 129–147. Available from: https://doi.org/10.53116/pgaflr.7366 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPSV). 1999. Act No. 359/1999 Coll., on Social and Legal Protection of Children [Zákon č. 359/1999 Sb., o sociálně-právní ochraně dětí] [online]. Prague: MPSV. [Quotation date 7. 8. 2025]. Available from: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/1999-359 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPSV). 2006. Act No. 108/2006 Coll., on Social Services [Zákon č. 108/2006 Sb., o sociálních službách] [online]. Prague: MPSV. [Quotation date 25 October 2025]. Available from: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2006-108 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPSV). 2012. National Strategy for the Protection of Children’s Rights 2012–2018: Right to Childhood [Národní strategie ochrany práv dětí 2012–2018: Právo na dětství] [online]. Prague: MPSV. [Quotation date 26. 6. 2025]. Available from: https://www.databaze-strategie.cz Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPSV). 2020. National Strategy for the Protection of Children’s Rights 2021–2029 [Národní strategie ochrany práv dětí 2021–2029] [online]. Prague: MPSV. [Quotation date 4. 7. 2025]. Available from: https://www.mpsv.cz/cms/documents/ee6ce3d4-77db-af53-9dccc034ee15779a/NARODNI%2BSTRATEGIE%2BOCHRANY%2BPRAV%2BDETI%2B2021_2029_ FINAL.pdf 149 Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPSV). 2022. National Action Plan for the Implementation of the European Child Guarantee 2022–2030 [online]. Prague: MPSV. [Quotation date 20 July 2025]. Available from: https://www.mpsv.cz/cms/documents/f87c6296-5303-e172-afc3ce4c20137347/Ak%C4%8Dn%C3%AD+pl%C3%A1n+k+napln%C4%9Bn%C3%AD+Z%C3%A1r uky+pro+d%C4%9Bti+na+obdob%C3%AD+2022-2030.pdf Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT). 2002. Act No. 109/2002 Coll., on Institutional and Protective Education in School Facilities [Zákon č. 109/2002 Sb.] [online]. Prague: MŠMT. [Quotation date 30. 6. 2025]. Available from: https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/cs/2002-109 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT). 2023. Extraordinary Data Collection in Institutions in 2023: Final Report [Mimořádný sběr dat v ústavech v roce 2023: Závěrečná zpráva] [online]. Prague: MŠMT. [Quotation date 21. 5. 2025]. Available from: https://msmt.gov.cz/uploads/O_200/Data_a_statistiky/Mimoradny_sber_v_ustavech_v_roce_2 023_zaverecna_zprava.pdf Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT). 2024. Annual Report on the State and Development of Education in the Czech Republic for 2023 [Výroční zpráva o stavu a rozvoji vzdělávání v České republice v roce 2023] [online]. Prague: MŠMT. [Quotation date 14 8 2025]. Available from: https://msmt.gov.cz/file/63391/download/ Save the Children. 2005. Family Matters: A Study of Institutional Childcare in Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union [online]. London: Save the Children Fund. [Quotation date 19. 5. 2025]. Available from: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/family-matters-study-institutionalchildcare-central-and-eastern-europe-and-former-soviet Šiška, J., & Beadle-Brown, J. 2020. Deinstitutionalisation: Report on the Transition from Institutional Care to Community-Based Services in 27 EU Member States [online]. [Quotation date 23. 6. 2025]. Available from: https://deinstitutionalisation.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/eeg-di-report-2020-1.pdf United Nations. 2010. Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (A/RES/64/142) [online]. New York: UN General Assembly. [Quotation date 10. 8. 2025]. Available from: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/673583 United Nations (Universal Periodic Review – Czech Republic). 2017. Report on the Implementation of Recommendations Highlighting Fragmentation in the Child Protection System [online]. Geneva: United Nations. [Quotation date 28 5 2025]. Available from: https://upr-info.org/sites/default/files/documents/2017-10/js1_upr28_cze_e_main.pdf 150 VÚPSV – Research Institute for Labour and Social Affairs. 2024. Causes and Contexts of Placing Children Outside the Family [Příčiny a souvislosti umísťování dětí mimo rodinu] [online]. Prague: VÚPSV. [Quotation date 9. 6. 2025]. Available from: https://katalog.vupsv.cz/fulltext/vz_574.pdf 151 NORWAY 152 Eclecticism in Residential Childcare Terje Halvorsen Terje Halvorsen42 is a professor in child welfare at the Department of Social work at NTNU (Norwegian University for Science and Technology). As a researcher he has worked on topics in social pedagogy, philosophy of education, developmental psychology, and residential care. Keywords Child welfare, residential childcare, professional theories, eclecticism, evidenced-based practice. Abstract OBJECTIVES: This article explores the use of professional theories in residential care with a particular focus on the efforts to establish an evidence-based practice. THEORETICAL BASE: The discussion addresses positions within research methodology, epistemology and philosophical anthropology, as well as a range of theories in developmental psychology and social pedagogy. METHODS: The author has studied professional theories launched in the period from the early 20th century to the present. In addition, the author has followed the ongoing debate among Norwegian scholars by reading textbooks and articles, and by attending conferences and seminars. Although these latter observations are from a Norwegian context, the conclusion may have general validity. OUTCOMES: The endeavors to establish an evidence-based practice have failed. Even though most single methods and multimodal programs have been evaluated, no study have demonstrated a decisive impact on the majority of children or young people. What is referred to as statistical ‘findings’ or ‘evidence’ are weak correlations that should not be generalized to individuals without careful consideration. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE: Professionals and researchers in the field of residential childcare should give up the search for one ultimate approach, or a few preferred approaches, and realize that eclecticism is the way to high-quality child welfare. 42 Contact: Professor Terje Halvorsen, Institute of Social Work, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Box 8900, Torgarden, 7491 Trondheim, Norway; [email protected] 153