Strasbourg, 8 March 2022

CDENF(2021)19rev

Steering Committee for the Rights of the Child (CDENF)

Reporting mechanisms and practices concerning violence against children in several Council of Europe Member States

Analysis report prepared by Simona Florescu, Leiden University (NL)

[email protected]

www.coe.int/cdenf

1. Introduction

Violence against children (VAC) is most notably defined in Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the CRC) according to which states parties are to take measures to protect children from “all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse.” The largest global scale study concerning VAC published in 2006 showed that children suffer and are exposed to violence in alarming numbers.[1] The study found inter alia that VAC was largely underreported[2] and it was hence recommended that states create accessible and child friendly mechanisms for children, their care givers and others to report VAC.

Since the 2006 Study, several global and regional instruments have tacked the issue of VAC[3]. The Council of Europe is currently concluding the implementation of its Strategy on the Rights of the Child (2016-2021) adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 March 2016. The Strategy identified five (5) priority areas aiming at strengthening the protection and promotion of children’s rights across the 47 Council of Europe member States. The Strategy’s third priority area is “A life free from violence for all children,” and one of the major challenges in this regard, as per paragraph 15, is the insufficient attention to mechanisms for reporting violence against children, counselling, recovery and reintegration.

At institutional level, the implementation of the Strategy is overseen by the Steering Committee on The Rights of the Child (CDENF) and with regard to the third priority area it is guided by the Working Group on Responses to Violence Against Children (CDENF-GT-VAE).

In line with its supporting role to CDENF’s work, CDENF-GT-VAE is contributing to the development of non-binding instruments with relevant guidance for member States. In light of the important role of mandatory reporting in the fight for combatting violence against children, one such instruments is the proposed Recommendation on the development of effective mechanisms for professionals to report violence against children (VAC).

Several studies authorised by the CDENF have provided conceptual and empirical evidence on the necessity of a new non-binding instrument focusing on reporting mechanisms for violence against children.

At conceptual level, two discussion papers were prepared in 2020 (i) by Professor Mathews concerning mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse (the Mathews Report)[4] and (ii) by Professor Bruning concerning international and European reporting mechanisms of violence against children (the Bruning Report)[5].

Both documents highlighted gaps in research concerning the laws and/or policies for (professionals’) duties to report VAC across member States. Professor Ben Mathews’ study documents existing standards and practices on mandatory reporting in the field of sexual abuse of children. One of his main findings is that legislative mandatory reporting duties outweigh professional standards in effectively identifying cases of child sexual abuse. On the other hand, the Bruning Report covers reporting mechanisms for VAC more in general, thus not limited to cases of sexual abuse. She highlights that effective reporting is not limited to mandatory duties to report, but rather should include a variety of elements such as cooperation between agencies, information-sharing, awareness raising, training, supportive protocols and adequate resources which are all essential elements for proper identification and reporting of VAC. Also, on the basis of existing research there is no consensus among States between legal duties or policy-based duties to report as the most conducive for early identification and prevention of VAC. Last but not least, both Reports identified gaps in empirical evidence on how violence is reported in Council of Europe Member States.

In this light, during CDENF’s meeting which took place between 23 - 24 June 2020, the Secretariat undertook to prepare a survey identifying challenges and good practices related to reporting mechanisms, involving the CDENF-GT-VAE (the First Survey). On 4 November 2020, the First Survey was circulated to the eight member States represented in the Working Group. An additional ninth reply came from the Netherlands through the Royal Dutch Medical Association which has contributed to the substantive work through an expert presentation in 2020. The aim of the First Survey was, inter alia, to assess how these States implement the relevant national legislation or policy instruments in the field of reporting of violence against children, the effectiveness of such mechanisms and the development of a better understanding of the challenges arising at domestic level, as well as selected good practice examples in this respect.

The findings of the First Survey and their relevance for the proposed Recommendation were discussed during the CDENF plenary meeting which took place between 18-20 May 2021. In this meeting the CDENF has authorised the submission of a new, more targeted survey to all 47 Council of Europe Member States (the Second Survey). The Second Survey focused on key legal issues regarding mandatory reporting by professionals which came to the fore as a result of the First Survey. 23 Council of Europe member States responded to the Second Survey, 6 of which had also taken part in the First Survey.

1.1.      Scope and structure of this report

This report analyses the findings from the First and Second Surveys, to which a total of 26 Council of Europe Member States have provided input. The responses have been in all cases submitted through governmental officials which had been identified within their respective jurisdiction as competent to give information on reporting of VAC.

This study builds on the Bruning and Matthews Reports and it aims to supply further (empirical) evidence on national practices in relation to reporting VAC and further support the drafting of the Recommendation proposed for adoption by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers.

This report provides a comprehensive overview of relevant issues concerning VAC identified on the basis of the two surveys submitted. Considering that these surveys were not entirely overlapping, where relevant, the First or Second Survey, as the case may be, will be identified as the source of the information. Furthermore, it should be highlighted that this report focuses on legislative provisions and other information included in the responses, and less on the quality of these legislative provisions or on their implementation. Where some legal texts provided by experts could be indicative of some potential limitations which may result in practice – as evidenced from academic papers – such potential limitations are noted in the relevant section of this document.

The report is structured around key issues for reporting VAC as have been identified in the surveys as well as in the Bruning and Matthews reports. Each subsection from 2.1. to 2.9. below opens with some remarks on the specific topic addressed followed by an overview of the key issues for member States and, as the case may be, specific challenges which exist or good practices in a particular area. Finally, Section 4 offers some conclusions and recommendations on the basis of the findings from the surveys.

2.         National Reporting mechanisms for violence against children -findings from the survey

2.1.      Definitions of violence

As outlined in the introduction, it is Article 19 of the CRC which most prominently defines violence. For the purposes of the Second Survey the following definition was provided to Member States: Violence against children (VAC) includes violent acts such as physical, sexual or psychological violence, injury, maltreatment and abuse, as well as omissions (i.e. failures to act) such as neglect and negligent treatment, which result in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, physical and emotional integrity, survival or development and affects the child’s dignity. VAC also includes disciplinary measures inflicting pain, however light, as well as exploitation and harassment, but excludes accidental harm which is not the result of one of the precited acts or omissions by a physical or a legal person.

VAC can appear in various settings, such as in the child’s usual “circle of trust”, comprising the home, larger family context, care or educational institutions and leisure activities in the wider understanding, but also in the public domain. It can be inflicted upon the child by adults, older children or peers, and is regularly facilitated and exacerbated by digital technologies (“online violence”) and the media.

Legislation defining violence and prohibiting it exists in most of the member States surveyed. However, significant differences exist in how the legal system defines violence and whether there is a specific definition of VAC. Provisions in national criminal codes sanction specific acts of violence where children are direct victims. These provisions can be either general in that children or adults could become victims (such as assault) or specific in that children are the only possible victims (for example rape against a minor). Sometimes, where the child is not the direct victim in the Criminal Code, committing a specific offence against a child amounts to an aggravated circumstance.

Notwithstanding the above, a specific definition of VAC (either in the criminal code or other pieces of legislation) exists only in about half of the member States (13). The remaining half (13) do not have such dedicated provisions, but rather prohibit various acts which could as VAC in various legal provisions.

Furthermore, it is commendable that at legislative level most countries have prohibited corporal violence against children. Only 5 States (20% of the respondents) mentioned that in their legal system corporal punishment is either not prohibited or that the legal definition is ambiguous, and the societal attitudes are yet to condemn such practices by care givers.

2.2.      General framework for reporting violence against children

The Mathews Report (pp 16-22) has identified several international and European instruments which could be used in support of a mandatory duty to report cases of sexual abuse against children. However, as discussed in the Bruning Report (pp 7-10), international law falls short from requiring member States to enact laws mandating reporting for professionals, especially if the scope of the prohibited conduct is extended beyond sexual abuse to all forms of VAC.

In this document a ‘Legal duty to report’ refers to duties to report embedded in domestic legislation, whereas a ‘Policy based duty to report’ refers to a duty to report embedded in other documents such as implementing norms, professional standards, guidelines or manuals, e.g. based on a policy that applies to individuals practicing a given occupation. [6]

Of the surveyed member States, most of them (N= 16) provide for both legal and policy based duties to report VAC. Nine (9) member States have opted solely for a legal duty to report, whereas The Netherlands has expressed a strong preference towards a policy based reporting duty; however, similar to other member States, severe cases of violence are subject to a legal reporting duty.

Notwithstanding the above, it should be noted that in practice the distinction between legal duty to report and policy-based duties may also lie in the type of VAC which is subject to reporting. Usually, the most severe forms of violence are criminalized and subject to legal reporting duties to the relevant law enforcement authorities. Conversely it is not always clear whether situations of suspicion of acts of violence which do not reach the threshold of criminal law or caregivers’ omissions (eg neglect) give rise to a legal reporting duty, policy-based duty or are exempted altogether from these duties. In other words, the quality of the legal / policy-based reporting duty should also be analysed so as to determine whether its scope is wide enough so as to cover mere suspicions (in this sense see also section 2.3. below). If the definition of the legal duty to report covers only criminal acts or it could be interpreted to cover only such acts / omissions, then, arguably, the focus of that specific legal system is on policy-based duties to report.

Good practices - breadth of the law on the mandatory duty to report SWEDEN: According to the Social Services Act ([2001:453] Ch 14, para 1), on being informed, or suspecting, that a child is at risk of violence, certain agencies and their staff are obliged to immediately report to the Social Services Committee […] ALBANIA: According to the Law nr. 18\2017 « On the rights and protection of the child » any employee of public and private institutions who comes into contact with children because of the profession and suspects of a child being abused, neglected, maltreated or found at risk thereof, must notify immediately the State Police authorities or the child protection structures at local level.

Furthermore, the imposition of criminal liability for failure the report appears to be intimately linked to the definition of the duty to report. Most States -with the exception of Albania and United Kingdom [7] - responded that failure to report may result in the professional’s criminal liability. Yet, at the same time, it appears that usually criminal liability is only triggered if some form of intent is met. Negligence in non-reporting is criminalized in fewer instances (such is the case of Sweden and Russia for example).

In addition, the Second Survey addressed the topic of disciplinary liability for failure to report as arguably risks of disciplinary measures may increase the professionals’ willingness to report suspected cases of VAC. About 75% of the respondents mentioned that professionals could incur disciplinary sanctions for failure to report. However, the Second Survey did not assess the types of disciplinary sanctions available, nor any empirical evidence on whether these sanctions are actually applied in practice in the legal systems which provide for them.

Furthermore, in all member States the list of professionals subject to reporting duties is broad.

Member state	Mandated reporters
Albania	Broad list All professionals and certain categories of professionals in particular
Belgium	All professionals working with children
Bulgaria	Broad list ‘All persons, who become aware in the course of exercising their profession’
Croatia	Broad list In particular: police/ medical practitioners / social workers
Cyprus	Broad duty / specifically in cases of crime Aggravating sanctions for certain categories of professionals
Czech Republic	All citizens of the Czech Republic All persons located in the Czech Republic All professionals
Denmark	Broad list (includes any person exercising a public function)
Finland	Broad list (list of professionals identified by occupation)
Georgia	Broad list (list of professionals identified by occupation)
Hungary	Broad list of professionals specifically for criminal offenses against children
Iceland	All persons involved in matters concerning children Special obligation for: pre-school heads and teachers, child-minders, school heads, teachers, clergy, physicians, dentists, midwives, nurses, psychologists, social workers, developmental therapists, career councillors) and those providing social services or counselling
Ireland	Indicated in law: it includes police, medical practitioners, teaching staff, social workers, managers of reception facilities for people seeking asylum, schools and other institutions
Italy	Public officials (teachers or social workers) Those providing a public service (doctors and all healthcare workers), local social services operators; family counselling services operators; family homes (case famiglia) operators
Lithuania	Broad list (all professionals; certain groups of professionals in particular)
Luxembourg	Broad list (generic: “everybody”)
Malta	Broad list of professionals specifically for criminal offenses against children
Montenegro	Broad list of professionals specifically for criminal offenses against children
Netherlands	Professionals activating in the following sectors: Healthcare, Education, Day-care, Social Support, Youth services, Justice
Norway	Broad list of professionals
Poland	Broad list of professionals (in particular those qualified as public officers)
Portugal	Police, medical practitioners, teaching staff, social workers Local Commissions for the Protection of Children and Young People, entities with competence in matters of childhood and youth
Russian Federation	All professionals, including but not limited to police, medical practitioners, teaching staff, social workers
Slovenia	Broad list (specific categories of professionals identified)
Sweden	Broad list (list of professionals identified by occupation)
Switzerland	Broad list (list of professionals identified by occupation)
The United Kingdom	Legal duty only relates to professionals suspecting cases of Female Genital Mutilation / for policy based duties the list of professionals is broad.

2.3.      The mandated reporters

The effectiveness of any reporting mechanism is contingent on the willingness of professionals to report VAC. In turn, the design of national legal systems concerning topics such as (i) anonymity of reporting; (ii) professional secrecy; (iii) immunity from sanctions or the (iv) the reporter’s state of mind which activates a certain duty may have an important impact on the professionals’ willingness to report cases of VAC in practice. The paragraphs below briefly outline how each of these four aspects may impact on reporting duties at theoretical level, followed by a presentation of the findings from the surveys.

Existing international instruments do not provide express guidance concerning the topic of anonymous reports. Certain provisions encourage states to allow for anonymous reports from the general public, yet no such equivalent requirements exist regarding professionals acting in their official capacity.[8] Impossibility to secure anonymity for the reporters has been raised sometimes as an argument against mandatory reporting laws.[9] The Bruning Report found that more guidance is necessary at European level concerning anonymous reporting by professionals.[10]

In their responses to the surveys, the majority of member States specified that is possible to file anonymous reports. However, this is typically the case for private citizens, with laws limiting professionals from anonymous filings. For the latter category, anonymity may sometimes be granted in relation to third parties, such as the presumed perpetrator or the public, but very rarely towards the authority where the report is filed. For example, in Ireland anonymity could only be guaranteed in relation to the public, and only provided the case is not ultimately determined in court. Should cases be decided in court, then there is no guarantee of anonymity for the professional having brought the case. Some states did make the distinction between professionals reporting as private citizens as opposed to them acting in their official capacities, circumstances in which anonymity is not allowed.

Most professionals interacting with children are bound to certain professional secrecy rules by virtue of their professions. For the purposes of this Report, ‘professional secrecy’ or ‘confidentiality’ is to be understood to refer to communications, which occur in a recognised context, which allows the speakers to resist legal pressure to disclose its contents. Disclosure of information protected by professional secrecy / confidentiality rules may result in civil, tort or criminal liability, depending on the applicable national legal provisions.

Section 6.4. of The Council of Europe Policy Guidelines on Integrated National Strategies for the Protection of Children (CM/Rec(2009)10) (the Policy Guidelines) identifies, among others, that confidentiality norms should not hamper reporting and national legislations should remove requirements for parents’ and carers’ permission to file complaints. Several other international instruments[11] also provide that states should take steps to waive statutory protections regarding confidentiality in cases of suspicion of VAC. The release from professional secrecy obligations is thus key to an effective reporting system. Furthermore, professionals working with children should be provided with immunity from sanctions when they report VAC in good faith.

Most member States responded that laws in their countries allow or encourage professionals to report above professional secrecy obligations. In some cases, specific professional categories such as members of the clergy or health professionals cannot benefit of exemptions, however these categories were mentioned in only six (7) out of 26 respondents. Seven (7) countries also mentioned that confidentiality is one barrier to reporting (see also section 2.5. below). In some responses it was indicated that confidentiality could be waived but at the same time, confidentiality was listed as a barrier to reporting. This may be an indication of vague legislative drafting of the relevant legal provisions, or a need for further training of professionals (see also section 2.8 below).  

The question of immunity from sanctions has only been dealt with in the Second Survey, and all but 5 (five) of the respondents indicated that their legal systems protect professionals from disciplinary sanctions if they act in good faith. It was however also mentioned that professionals are not always aware of the relevant legal or policy provisions in this area.

Finally, the legal requirements regarding the reporter’s state of mind are another element which may hamper or facilitate the identification of VAC cases. On the one hand, too high of a threshold may limit reporting. On the other hand, there are concerns that child protection systems may become burdened by overreporting if the thresholds are too low. Matthews has recommended that the reporter’s state of mind which activates the duty to report should include suspicion on reasonable grounds in addition to knowledge.[12]

In the vast majority of member States, the threshold for reporting appears to be set at suspicion, rather than knowledge. In the Czech Republic a slightly higher standard is required, that of ‘substantiated suspicion’. Nevertheless, several countries answered that there is ambiguity among professionals as to when VAC should be reported. On the one hand reporters do not always recognize signs of abuse and on the other hand there is some uncertainty as to whether the threshold for reporting has been met. Moreover, States have mentioned that the relationship between some categories of professionals (in particular school teachers and medical staff) and parents is another factor which deters reporting. Thus, for example the close relationship between parents and professionals may result in reluctance to report. Also, sometimes parents are the main clients and children are not considered as part of the risk assessment.

Furthermore, it should be noted that in certain member States the definition of the legal duty to report appears to set a high threshold (see also section 2.2. above), in that the legal duty to report is connected to knowledge of the existence of a criminal act. At the same time, several responses identified a piecemental approach to the duty to report resulting in confusion among professionals as to when their duty is activated. Indeed, lack of knowledge about the reporting system was identified as a barrier to reporting in 16 of the 26 respondents (64%- see also Section 2.5. below).

Last but not least, a response specified that the duty to report is only activated if some professional categories are not able to offer help themselves. Therefore, these professionals see themselves bound by the duty to report only if the respective case of VAC cannot be remedied by themselves, in their professional relationship with the child (and sometimes the family).

The table below includes an overview of how each member State regulates anonymity, confidentiality, immunity from sanctions and thresholds for reporting.

Member State	Anonymous reports	Professional secrecy	Immunity from sanctions	Threshold for reporting
Albania	possible	Psychologists exempted but in limited circumstances	Not exempted	Suspicion
Belgium	Possible	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion or higher
Bulgaria	Not possible	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Croatia	Possible	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Cyprus	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens	Only certain categories of professionals	Exempted	Suspicion
Czech Republic	Possible	Exempted	Exempted	Substantiated suspicion
Denmark	Possible	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Finland	Not possible	Exempted (with the exception of priests)	Exempted	Suspicion
Georgia	Possible in private capacity	Ambiguous	Ambiguous	Suspicion
Hungary	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens	Not exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Iceland	Possible for citizens For professionals only possible in relation to third parties	Exempted	Not exempted	Reason to believe
Ireland	Possible for citizens Limitations for professionals	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion or concern
Italy	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens (with limitations)	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Lithuania	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens (with limitations)	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Luxembourg	Not possible for professionals	Exempted (in limited circumstances)	Exempted	Suspicion
Malta	Possible but not encouraged and limited by law	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Montenegro	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Netherlands	Possible but very limited for certain categories of professionals	Possible for medical staff N/A for other professionals	Exempted	For physicians: based on the reporting code
Norway	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Poland	Not possible	Many categories of professionals not exempted	Not exempted	Suspicion
Portugal	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens	Exempted when crimes are at stake	Exempted	Suspicion
The Russian Federation	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens	Not exempted	Not exempted	Suspicion or concern
Slovenia	Not possible for professionals	Limited exemptions	N/A	Suspicion (limited by family’s position)
Sweden	Not possible for professionals Possible for citizens	Exempted	Exempted	Suspicion
Switzerland	Possible	Exempted in principle but not for auxiliary staff	Exempted	Suspicion
United Kingdom	Not for all categories of professionals	Exempted for certain categories of professionals	Exempted	Suspicion

2.4.      Reporting process

The overarching principle in matters concerning children - laid down primarily in Article 3 of the CRC- is that in all actions the child’s best interests is the primary or -as the case may be- the paramount consideration. Academic studies suggest that the institutional response to cases of VAC follows at times different understandings of the child’s best interests.[13] For example it was found that social workers are sometimes reluctant to file reports to police due to concerns about excessive interventions against families.[14] The wish to protect children combined with the fear that police’s response is too punitive are deterrents for social workers, health workers or other professionals having frequent contact with children.[15]

            Reporting is most difficult in cases of ‘mild’ physical abuse, emotional abuse, and some of the reasons are professionals’ concern for further harm and lack of control of the outcome for the child.[16]

            These findings are also supported by the information from the surveys. The two main authorities involved in processing reports are social services (or their functional equivalent in each country) or the police. However, depending on the local context, the type of (suspected) VAC, the definition of the duty to report, many more authorities may be involved in the reporting process. One barrier in reporting (identified as such by 50% of the respondents) is concern about consequences of reporting for the child. The data from the surveys does not support drawing clear conclusions as to the causes for such barrier but for example one respondent specified that professionals do not receive any follow up on their reports and this casts doubt for them on the efficiency of the reporting system and the safety of the children involved.

            Streamlining reporting through more common standards across professional categories or inter-agency cooperation (see section 2.7. below) may alleviate some of these concerns and improve the reporting process.

2.5.      Barriers to professionals’ reporting cases of VAC

The sections above focused on how the duty to report is framed in selected member States and on specific aspects in relation to mandated reporting which may enhance, or on the contrary, hamper the identification of VAC.

At legislative level, it was positively noted that all States have provided for duties to report (legal, policy based or both). At the same time, in the vast majority of member States, indicated that professionals are released from confidentiality duties or associated disciplinary liabilities when reporting in good faith. Also, it is common to have the threshold for reporting set at a low level (suspicion rather than knowledge). The legal framework thus appears adequate for securing an effective reporting mechanism.

Despite these positive developments, all member States identified continued challenges in the identification of cases of VAC. The paragraphs above have touched upon some of these barriers in specific contexts. An overview of the barriers listed by states may help shed light on further topics which need improvement, either via legislative measures or through other means, including but not limited to, training, awareness raising or streamlining. The table below synthetizes all the information concerning obstacles in reporting.

In addition, some responses added that obstacles in reporting are generated by the heavy workload, high staff turnover, or data protection rules.

2.6.      Child friendly procedures / victim support[17]

Criticism to mandatory reporting laws emphasizes the reactiveness of interventions and a lack of holistic approach like material and other forms of support for struggling families.[18] Indeed, regardless of the position on mandatory reporting, it is considered that a holistic child protection system is key for protecting children from violence.[19] Such system should include prevention mechanisms, child friendly proceedings as well as victim support.

Children are at the centre of procedures concerning VAC. In addition to their protection, any measure concerning children should be taken with full respect for their rights as enshrined in the CRC. Child friendly procedures are crucial, and they must include as a minimum the right of the child to express his or her views in a suitable environment, with access to specialized staff.[20] Flowing from children’s position as rights’ holders they should also be entitled to file reports with due regard for their privacy and the possibility to have their identity protected (anonymous reports).

Moreover, States need to take account of children’s vulnerability in general and of the specific vulnerability of certain groups of children, including but not limited to children with disabilities, children at risk of poverty, children in migration, LGTBI children, ethnic/religious minority children, etc.[21]

All of the member States surveyed mentioned that their legal systems allow for children to file reports directly and anonymously to authorities.

Furthermore, it is commendable that all member States surveyed provide for specialized support to children victims of violence and sometimes to their families as well. The survey did not assess the circumstances in which children, or their families have access to these services or their quality. In this regard, one respondent stressed that child support is limited in the summer season when pedagogical psychological services and educational institutions are closed. Similarly, professional services for children in rural and remote areas are not always available.

Also it appears that privacy laws protecting children are in force in all member States taking part in the First Survey.

Concerning participatory rights, only half of the member States answered that children are heard by the competent authorities before filing a report. Moreover, only Belgium, Croatia and Portugal have developed protocols for children in highly vulnerable situations. Even where such protocols exist they usually concern one category of highly vulnerable children, rather than specific protocols for each group.

2.7       Inter-agency coordination and cooperation[22]

An effective reporting mechanism is conditional on appropriate coordination and cooperation between child protection agencies and other agencies, including law enforcement, health, and education.[23] The Council of Europe Policy Guidelines identify several aspects which are key for a sustainable institutional child protection framework. For example, States should designate an agency at national level entrusted with coordinating and monitoring functions and with overall responsibility for VAC. It is also recommended that other public institutions contributing to the child protection system collaborate with such coordinating agency as well as with other institutions and actors, including civil society. Links need to be established, as deemed necessary between institutions.

The responses to the survey revealed that inter-agency coordination and cooperation continues to pose significant challenges at national level. The topic of a national focal point was not directly addressed in the survey; however, Belgium mentioned that such a point has been designated at national level. Of the countries surveyed, eleven (11) have identified the lack of efficient communication and information-sharing among agencies as a regular challenge of the national child protection systems. Among the barriers to inter-agency cooperation, member States highlighted professional secrecy (especially of the health workers and where there are doubts about the threshold for reporting) and the necessity to obtain parental consent. In addition, data protection legislation or practices may sometimes be perceived as an obstacle to information sharing.

Several good practices were reported concerning the integration of the duty to report into a wider set of obligations.

The Barnahus model, originating in Iceland, has be hailed as one of the most successful child friendly models offering an integrated approach to VAC. Under this model, children’s needs are met through being offered multiple services (including counselling, reporting, victim support, metal health services, etc) in child friendly premises and “under one roof” – the Barnahus.[24] This model has been adopted by several countries in Europe.

2.8       Resources and training[25]

Resources and adequate training of professionals are equally important in ensuring the effectiveness of reporting mechanisms. All surveyed States mentioned that public resources are allocated to the child protection systems. It is however difficult to assess whether these funds are adequate and the extent to which all professional services are sufficiently resourced. Belgium, The Czech Republic, Iceland and Italy, specifically highlighted the lack of resources / capacity as one of the barriers to effective reporting. Further, for most of the surveyed member States the funding originates both in state and private funds.

In addition to funding, (regular) training ensures that professionals are aware of their duties and that they are able to discharge of them in an appropriate way. VAC occurs in complex contexts, both social and legal, and therefore training is an essential element for ensuring that those in contact with children are able to discharge of their tasks in an appropriate way. It has been considered that mandated reporters with good training about their role and child maltreatment are more effective reporters.[26] Studies showed that low awareness of the reporting duties, low knowledge of indicators of VAC or lack of confidence in identifying abuse were linked to a lack of reporter education.[27] Trainings offered to professionals should include modules on the legal requirements; the role of the reporter; reasons for making a report, identifying maltreatment; dealing with disclosures by children; barriers to reporting; the impact on the reporter and tools on how to help families.[28]

The First Survey did not assess the quality of the training or the need for additional training.  Most of the States reported that training courses are available both during the initial professional training and on a more continuous basis after having obtained the professional qualifications. In this regard, Portugal and Ireland identified challenges connected to the lack of integrated training between different sectors of professionals and the fact that there is a need to train mandated persons in identifying when a report is necessary.

Two of the main barriers to reporting identified in section 2.5 above were specifically the lack of knowledge in recognising signs of violence and knowledge about the reporting systems – which are also elements found in research to be essential for a reporter’s training. These gaps have been pointedly raised by the United Kingdom and Finland as requiring attention in reporters’ trainings.

2.9.      Monitoring and data collection[29]

Principle 6.3 of the Policy Guidelines recommends that the impact of measures taken in combatting VAC is subject to regular and independent monitoring. One of the recommendations in the 2019 ‘A life free from Violence’ Report on action taken by the Council of Europe and member States[30] was that integrated national strategies or other integrated approaches are regularly monitored by independent bodies.

Data collection complements monitoring. Under Principle 7 of the Policy Guidelines, the “identification of an effective strategy for the protection of children from violence depends on the availability and proper analysis of data at national, regional and local levels.” The mid-term Evaluation Report of the Council of Europe Strategy for the Rights of the Child (2016-2021) emphasized the lack of collection, disaggregation and sharing of data as a continuous challenge in tackling VAC.[31] Also, appropriate monitoring and data collection were identified in both Bruning and Mathews report as cornerstones of an effective child protection system.[32]

Slightly less than half of the surveyed member States have in place monitoring mechanisms for reporting VAC. The existence of a monitoring system could be correlated with States’ responses concerning their assessment of the impact of reporting laws on the national system Thus, when a member State answered that a monitoring mechanism was in place, such State could also indicate more accurately whether legislation has resulted in changes in for example, the rate of correct identification of children at risk.

Data collection appears to be better implemented compared to monitoring as all States reported to have set up mechanisms for gathering evidence for the purposes of data collection.

3.         Conclusions and Recommendations

The two surveys which have been analysed in the present report showed that all participating Council of Europe member States have taken significant steps in combating VAC and providing an adequate legal framework for preventing, identifying and ultimately combatting all forms of VAC. All member States enacted laws or policies which are usually coupled with implementing protocols and various additional measures to ensure effective implementation. These measures have been highlighted in the relevant sections above, including some specific good practice examples. Combatting VAC is thus clearly on the agenda of Council of Europe Member States.

Notwithstanding the progress made, the surveys revealed that several areas or practices need improvement or further refinement. The recommendations below address these areas and gaps to be filled, also with a view to inspiring the ongoing work towards the draft Recommendation:

3.1.      Member States should enact relevant legislation prohibiting all forms of violence in all settings, including corporal punishment by caregivers.

3.2.      Broad lists of mandated reporters are encouraged; however, states should also clearly indicate the list of professionals which are in particular under reporting duties on the basis of their relationship to children.

3.3.      States should provide clear definitions of legal or policy-based reporting duties and, where both exist, coordination should be ensured between the legal and policy based duties in terms of when and how the duty is activated.

3.4.      States should ensure that definition of violence are coordinated with the legal and policy-based reporting duties and with the threshold for reporting.

3.5.      Laws or policies should allow for professionals to report cases of VAC anonymously, especially regarding third parties.

3.6.      Laws or policies should clearly provide for waivers from confidentiality rules / professional secrecy for professionals reporting cases of VAC in good faith.

3.7.      National laws or policies should indicate in a clear and concrete manner the threshold for reporting VAC as well as the channels of reporting for professionals and specialized trainings and awareness raising campaigns should be organized for a broad dissemination of relevant rules and procedures.

3.8.      Laws and policies should exempt professionals from disciplinary or as the case may be criminal liability when reporting in good faith, and dissemination campaigns regarding such waivers should be organised.

3.9.      Focal points are to be designated at national level as well as contact points for relevant institutions which can easily liaise with each other for effective interagency cooperation and coordination.

3.10.    States should consider developing online databases and inter-operable systems for information sharing between relevant agencies, with due respect for the applicable data protection norms.

3.11.    Due regard should be given to children from vulnerable groups, and integrated protocols should be drafted to address the specific needs of these groups.

3.12.    Integrated training across professional groups should be organised so as to ensure proper knowledge of aspects such as signs of violence, role of the reporters, impact on the reporter and tools for helping families.

3.13.    States should consider setting up a follow up system ensuring that reporters are given feedback on the case after a referral

3.14.    States should ensure that the functioning of the reporting system is regularly monitored by independent institutions which have the mandate to make recommendations and publish their findings.