FRA MEETING WITH CIVIL SOCIETY AND OTHER EXPERTSON VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDEN WITH DISABILITIES

MEETING REPORT

14-15 April 2015

Report compiled by FRA FRP Team

The meeting brought together 25 civil society representatives to discuss preliminary findings from FRA’s research on violence against children with disabilities that will be published in autumn 2015.

The participants were invited to discuss the draft report, drawing on their expertise and experience in this area. Ways to disseminate the report as widely as possible, to

maximise the impact was also discussed. The meeting enabled every participant to effectively contribute to the outcomes of the meeting.

Who participated?

The meeting brought together representatives from civil society, one governmental representative and a member of FRA Scientific Committee. The participants came from the following organisations:

Austria League for Human Rights, AustriaInternational Federation of Educative Communities, Austria (FICE)Monitoring – Ausschuss, AustriaInclusion Europe, BelgiumEurochild, Belgium/HungaryUNICEF, BelgiumEuropean Disability Forum, BelgiumLUMOS, BelgiumDepartment of Children and Families, Ministry of Social Affairs, EstoniaThe Smile of the Child, GreeceMental Disability Advocacy Centre (MDAC), HungaryDefence for Children International, Netherlands

1

European Network on Independent Living (ENIL) and Norwegian Association of Disabled (NAD), NorwayPoznan Human Rights centre, PolandCentre for Legal Resources, RomaniaSpanish Committee of Representatives of Persons with disabilities (CERMI), SpainDisability Equality Consultant, UKFRA Scientific Committee member, Roman WieruszewskiFRA research teamFRA team cooperation with civil society

FRA civil society coordinator Waltraud Heller and the FRA project manager for the project on violence against children with disabilities, Monica Gutierrez Arques, welcomed the participants. They both highlighted the importance of working together on the draft report in order to further improve and finalise it. The need to actively engage key stakeholders in the early stages was also stressed, so that the report’s results and evidence-based opinions are grounded in reality, and the results can be communicated effectively with the support of FRA’s partners. The participants as well as other organisations who could not attend the meeting, were also able to submit their comments to the draft report in writing.

Why is it important for us to be there? Statement of purpose

Participants were invited to reflect on two questions in a quick round of introductions:

Two FRA researchers, Monica Gutierrez Arques and Nevena Peneva, presented the draft report on ‘Violence against children with disabilities’. This was followed by a quick ‘Questions and Answers’ session, to clarify the most burning questions regarding the content of the report and the research methodology.

Participants were later divided into six working groups, each discussing the same three questions:

2

Reporting back from the working groups

The session proved very rich, allowing for many fruitful comments to be made and passionate debates to take place. Participants discussed the challenges, comments and points they would like to see strentghened in the report.

1. What are the key challenges?

Participants identified many challenges in relation to the topic of violence against children with disabilities in general, and the FRA report in particular, ranging from topical issues to technical details. These included:

Lack of public awareness; Lack of training for professionals identifying and dealing with violence; The need for a clear distinction between institutions and residential care; Falling through the cracks (few child rights NGO’s, no one taking responsibility,

cooperation between different sectors (police, education etc.); It is not a popular theme: not considered important by policy makers; Overburden of parents, teachers, carers (lack of specialist services);

Children do not know where to go to report violence (inaccessible reporting mechanisms);

Lack of strong social services and structures in place; Lack of cooperation of actors involved in the problem (different services); Lack of information to children with disabilities / right to be informed; Segregated solutions / living conditions for children; Lack of empowerment and inclusiveness in the community; Making tools/good practices available to children and professionals;

3

High levels of stigma; Peer support; Early childhood intervention; Lack of legal remedies and indicators; Inconsistent definitions, terminology; Bad implementation and poor monitoring; Violence done by children themselves (violent behaviours); Contextual settings (where and how violence occurs); Role of parents (carers, perpetrators, gate-keepers); Incorporating the principle of child participation; The need to be more child-centred (too adult-centred); Medical violence (sedation, specific violence as regards children with disabilities); Parents/carers – do not realise what amounts to violence (use of restraints ’to

prevent harm’); Prejudice in society (segregating educational system leads to fear of otherness,

invisibility); Lack of data on abuse; Children with disabilities do not speak, reflect, report hostile incidents; Importance of child protection systems needs to be strengthened.

4

2. What are your general comments about the report?

The discussions on points that need to be strengthened in the report was again very rich and constructive.

Positive- Good and very helpful data- Diversity of case studies,

interviews and topics- Good practice examples have

practical implications- Linkage between chapters- Easier to grasp- Good graphic elements- Impressive information- Good practice tables- Analysis of risk factors (gives you understanding of specific violence against

children with disabilities)- The measures targeting children with disabilities- Good quotes- Important to do this report because of specific cycles of violence; children,

victims of violence are more likely to become perpetrators.- High quality of the report- Super timely and factual (impact on funding)- Zooms in to the specific context of children with disabilities

Critical

- Restructure the report (more engaging, topic-focused rather than instrument-focused)

- Too medicalised and focused on ’deficits’ of the children

- Difficult to understand what the report is trying to challenge

- Underestimating the role & potential of education

(segregation as a root for ‘otherness’, fear, prejudice, etc.)- Lack of clear distinction between institutions – family and community based

residential care (4.4.3.) - Too many quotes, some for the sake of having a quote, missing the point- Dominance of some geographical sources of quotes

5

- Harassment and abuse between and by people with disabilities seems to be missing

- Not strategic enough, what is the nexus of change?

- Need to make child protection a key EU policy priority, provide for incentive- A bit too broad to narrow down key incentives- Disappearance of critical watch-dog NGOs in response to criticism- Institutionalisation presented as fact and not as problematic in itself- Language inaccuracies (impairment, deficiency; quotations) - How to prevent violence given the constraints (missing)- Children not interviewed! Follow-up report should include this- Cut repetitions- Subheading numbering is unclear- Needs more visual elements- Violence is a huge topic: where does it start and end? In the introduction there

should be something also about perception and experience.- Get the message across in a clearer way: definition of abuse not clear in some

places (otherwise policy makers ca say ‘this is not an issue here’).- Societal (collective violence), overmedication! Is missing – highlight as a type of

violence- Violence in institutions needs to be highlighted as well (most importantly,

prevention is avoiding institutionalisation) and most violence happens at home.- Identify added value (access to medical service, how to enter families, how to

communicate/monitor where work has to be done).

3. Which points need to be strengthened in the report?

- More cultural sensitivity for the briefing of interviews

- Offensive terminology for some the legal policy, no unity and clarity; make a point about how diverse it is in the national contexts

- Legal section: analysis and description need to be separated

- Reporting is missing, also very victimising for children with disabilities

- Prevention, recovery, stopping the violence – missing aspects- Voice of children needs to be strengthened = also families (separately); they are

passive receivers (also throwing blame on children because of views of professionals – prejudice)

- Critical tone needs to be strengthened – legal framework, inadequate legal terminology

6

- A need to underline implementation of policies- Emphasise cooperation of stakeholders (lack of)- Best practice examples could strengthen recommendations

- Touch all forms of violence (trafficking, cyber violence, bullying); if not discusses – evidence for gaps and lack of awareness

- Link methodology to output and strengthen the evidence- Show linkages between different aspects /chapters/issues- Visual improvements: highlight words- Shorten the report (but how and what?)- Inter-sectionalism of children and disabilities (applicable for all children. Be more

specific on disabilities)- Possibly organise legal part based on topics, it might get shorter (e.g. right to

family care – as a separate topic)- Lack of training / education is mentioned but it really is a key message!- Emphasise the importance of child protection and monitoring- Strengthen the voice of children with disabilities- Less quotes on bad practice, more focus on good practice

- Point out state obligations towards ensuring protection & well-being of children with disabilities

- Concrete recommendations targeted at concrete stakeholders

- Role and potential of inclusive education

- Enforce human rights perspective, CRC has to be interpreted under CRPD (Art.

2,5,5,7,9)- More descriptive report- Consequences of abuses

Day 2

The second part of the meeting was spent mostly working on communication and outreach. After a quick recap of the most important issues and concerns that were brought up during Day 1, the participants were split into five groups. They discussed how to disseminate the report’s results as widely as possible, and how to reach out to all the relevant target groups. The key messages and (groups of) actors that should be focused on and could also act as multipliers were also discussed. (Specific key messages, media tools and channels were then later identified and developed for each specific group, in order to effectively manage the dissemination of the report’s results and opinions.)

7

Six groups were identified as the most relevant target groups:

- civil society organisations- actors at the EU level- actors at the national level- service providers- professionals

- families and children

Professionals

- Who to contact in case of violence? Coordination between different professionals- National focal point – the one that is foreseen by the CRPD- Role of national HR institutions- Assistance for implementation – victim support

groups- Focal points under the CRPD - trainer’s trainer

programme- Training materials – developed with advocates- Training of professionals on disability and

human rights perspectives in conformity with the CRPD

- Boards of teachers, police, judicial, healthcare professionals

- Need to adjust curricula – university, professional associations, advanced training – also happens in practice; specifically ensure training on rights-based approach for self-advocates

- Professional associations – networking, resource

- Awareness of forms of violence – professionals, persons with disabilities

- Enable mechanisms to speak up un violence

8

- Whistleblowers – right to protection; low threshold

Service providers- Who do we understand under this group? – private/public => difference between

measures- Social services, vocational rehab services; residential services, child protection

authorities- Involvement of disabled children and parents, participation- Financial support for staff - Practice: institutions of emergency of report system- Supervision for working staff- Guidelines and monitoring- Obligation to ask for legal assistance- Cross-sectorial case conferences if emergency case- Involvement of independent experts

EU and international level

- General action: children with disabilities falling in-between the cracks. Effort to find ways to integrate views in child rights policies, legislation

- EU disability strategy and action plan – make it a priority – children and violence against children with disabilities – also reflect it in the CRPD Conclusions, Observations; and ideally in EU‘s Rights of the Child strategy

- Eurostat module on children with disabilities – support indicators – improve data and evidence

- Review of the EU Financial instruments – 2016 – how to make them cover children with disabilities

- Identifying the champions in the European Parliament - interest in children and disability – make them champion an integrated approach

- Commission Vice President Timmermans; Commissioner Jurova; Commissioner Tissen; Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights; Commission President Junker – make efforts to reach them; trigger points

- European Parliament – joint resolution cross-committees on violence against children and disability; dedicated discussion on children during the international disability day (DEC)

- Using policy instruments, resourcing in place – use ex-ante conditions – from the angle of children with disabilities; Victims’ directive implementation; Disability Persons Organisations (DPOs) involved in structure fund monitoring; how to make sure that European Structural Funds (ESF) benefits these children and their families – review of the instrument

- Find ways to maximise incentives – grass-root organisations, watchdogs – provide evidence, get the resources; monitoring at the grassroots level

9

- Advocating for EU support post-2015 – indicators and targets on violence against children with disabilities.

10

- Civil society networks -- Networks to incorporate report in

their programmes (the recommendations)

- Conclusions and recommendations adapted for national needs

- National long-term strategy- Round tables – good mixture of

people involved (children, parents, professionals etc.)

- Support for the national networks on how to use the findings – factsheets with key messages, recommendations, conclusions

- Use media- Connect national with European

level – engage national members of the European Parliament

- Translate factsheets into national languages and easy-to-read format- Before launching the report in Member States – national network has to be already

engaged.

National level (national/regional/local authorities)

- Strengthening human rights in legislation- National/regional level: funds to implement laws (based on human rights approach)- Ensuring effective implementations by monitoring- Develop guidelines and protocols, but also obligations

Civil Society Organisations

- Use European networks (EUROCHILD, CRIN, EDF), European ombudsperson, ENSACT, European professional networks - target them;

- Engage members of parliament- National level – see if recommendations can get integrated in an already ongoing

campaign- Work with training institutions and/or academia

11

12

Families and children

- Many don’t know FRA exists – make sure there are materials that NGOs and DPOs can use to reach families and children; as they don’t have resources to create materials, but can disseminate FRA material to children and families

- Infographics – not only big reports, but illustrate the findings of the report with images

- Make sure that all materials sent out through CSO networks they know that they will be disseminated; then increased reporting can happen; also NGOs must know that this will be disseminated, be aware

- Social media reach people that aren’t connected in organisational networks; accessible – subtitling on films, signing, short and straightforward info

- Not focus on what happened – they already lived this; communicating the report focusing on what are the recommendations, what will happen?

- Making sure if information is sent to NGOs and DPOs – encourage families and children to use the media; beware of the risk that the media could use children with disabilities victims of violence to victimise them; underline more what can be done, not that it happened

- Using informal networks – websites, blogs- Education – Council of Europe (CoE) – produce materials, resources for youth

workers on the basis of the research, to stimulate discussions- Signposting of where to go if the issue affects you in all (FRA) material

Service providers

- Translate report in all national languages, reachable in accessible format, summarised briefly, understandable way

- Publish information about training events, events of service providers; round table events; online discussion groups (webinars)

- Competent national expert to introduce the chapters – trusted by competent service providers; can be done online

- Professional bodies – publish the report

13

Networks and multipliers; professionals

- Professional associations, social worker associations, municipalities local governmental associations

- Practical entry points – what to do against violence, forms, causes; Safety card – key issues; who to contact

- Trade Unions- Universities, faculties – contact; more

practically-oriented faculties- Support for translation into national

languages - Media – professionals – spreading

messages, integrating violence against children with disabilities in documentaries, TV series to raise awareness; app that targets professionals – info.

National level- Not enough to reach focal points of FRA; message should come from top level not

only FRA;- Topic not seen, believed or accepted usually countries don’t recognise it happens

there- Use the EU cleverly as a way to say this is compulsory, that this exists- Universities - part of training, educational system, data analysis- DPOs – convince them and have tools to reach groups in society easily; FRA cannot

do this on its own- easy to read, accessible – have to make sure the general population believe it, be a

part of watchdog, accept it exists, report it- Show this is happening; general population and people with disabilities- different levels of government, ministries, parliaments, focal point- example:

parliament members- tool for creating alternative reports throughout Europe - no documentation, no

reporting – reporting on CRC, CRPD- lower educational level than the general population of disabled people necessity

of accessible and easy-to-read material.

14

EU level- Opportunities to intervene – networks that we can use as messengers:

Getting key issues, recommendations – CRPD; EDF- Prepare for launch in September at the European Parliament; reach to the two

Intergroups; vice-presidents of the European Parliament- Champions on children with disabilities in the EP – maybe a resolution in one of the

committees – then action in the EU Disability Strategy- High Level Working Group on Disability – present report here; maybe represented by

Committee, or just FRA- Experts – European Semester- June and Oct- European Political Groups – in order to move the Council= they prepare the

briefings; - ENOC- European expert group on

alternative care- European Social Platform- Committee of the Regions – reach

the national level through their rapporteurs ; opinions

- European Social Council/ Committee- Online social media- get these

partners on board; campaign that can be retweeted; key info, infographics, target commissioners that tweet - to raise awareness

Closing and next steps

In his final remarks, FRA’s Head of Equality and Citizen’s Rights Department, Mr Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos, reflected on recent FRA work in the field of rights of the child and brought up some new insights, particularly regarding the use of structural funds as an effective strategy implementation tool.

15

Waltraud Heller, FRA’s civil society coordinator, thanked the participants for the committed, dedicated and rich work that had been undertaken during the two days. She again stressed the need of engaging important FRA stakeholders into Agency projects early on, in order to achieve impact, through high-quality results, shared ownership, and effective joint communication and outreach.

*Photo credit: Caroline Ramæs and FRA/Michael Wilkinson.

For more information, please contact: frp@fra.europa.eu

16