Monitoring violence against children in detention: on existing practices and challenges in the European Union 

As part of a joint project titled ‘Data MOSAIC: Data for Monitoring the Safety of Imprisoned Children’ a report [Data for monitoring the safety of imprisoned children: A European Study] was published to provide insights into existing monitoring, data collection and response mechanisms in relation to violence against children (VAC) in detention across the EU member states. Benefitting from input by child rights experts and child justice professionals from 25 member states, the research identified gaps and promising practices in the data collection and monitoring of VAC in children’s detention facilities.   

This blog by Silvia Randazzo, independent researcher and child rights expert, shares insights on specific practices, common challenges and ways forward when it comes to addressing VAC in detention. It is the second in the series, with the first blog covering the blind spot that is data on violence against children in detention and the complexities in monitoring it.  

In recognition of the high-risk children face in detention settings, EU member states employ diverse external, independent bodies to undertake monitoring. These include National Preventive Mechanisms (NPM) and Ombudspersons, special commissions or inspectorates. At the international and regional level, the UN Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT), the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) also undertake monitoring in children’s detention facilities. 

Each of these monitoring bodies, as well as each penitentiary system has its own data collection instruments and processes. As a result, there is significant variance in the monitoring and recording of violence against children in detention, including with regards to the frequency, detail, and analysis, and who has access to such data and cooperation (formal and informal) between agencies. 

Promising practices – snapshots from across the EU 

The report details some promising practices among the various data collection mechanisms observed across the EU. These include – without being exhaustive: 
 

• National Plan to Fight Violence in Detention: In 2023, France’s National Penitentiary Administration embarked on a comprehensive plan to combat (physical and verbal) violence within its prison system. The plan pursues three main goals:  addressing all forms of violence in every area, engaging both prison staff and detainees in prevention efforts, and reducing violence despite the challenges of prison overcrowding.

• Broad Definition of Violence and Multi-Agency Work: Finland employs a comprehensive definition of violence – which includes physical, psychological and emotional forms of violence – and emphasises multi-agency collaboration and training for prison staff to create a safer environment for all people in prison.

• Role and Operational Standards of the Ombudsperson for Children: Greece has established robust standards for their Ombudsperson for Children, ensuring strong child protection, including in detention and institutional settings. Frequent visits monitor staff-child and peer interactions. Their data collection/analysis method are guided by internal guidelines which are aligned with the rights set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. These assess factors such as family contact, non-discrimination, education, mental health vocational training, violence prevention and participation in prison decision-making.

• Role of Civil Society Organisations: in Italy, civil society organisations, notably Antigone, actively monitor and report on prison living conditions and incidents of violence, including in child detention facilities. This highlights the crucial role of collaboration between Penitentiary, Justice systems and external partners. 

• National Helpline for Children: Estonia has set up a national helpline for children, offering a channel for children to report issues and seek help. This helpline is also available for children in detention. 

• Special Monitoring and Inspection Commission: Portugal, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Belgium, among others, have established specialised commissions tasked with protecting the rights of children and young people in detention, demonstrating a system-wide commitment to their wellbeing.

• Designated Liaison Person: One interesting measure adopted by Ireland is a “designated liaison” within the detention facility to examine and report safeguarding concerns from staff, children or others. This is part of a comprehensive, child-centered system that offers multiple channels for children to   report or address violence and contribute to existing data collection efforts. 

Common challenges 

For monitoring of VAC in detention to be comprehensive, comparable and meaningfully supportive of child safeguarding aims, it is not only important that there are systems in place for collecting data on incidents but also that these mechanisms capture the various  forms violence can take: from physical violence against or between children, to bullying  and other forms of psychological violence that can be more challenging to detect, as well as self-harm and neglect. Particularly in the prison context, where power dynamics play a unique role in the everyday lives of detained children and the adults they co-exist with, attention to the complexities of violence – and the harm it inflicts – is crucial. 

In the report, several  gaps in the existing data collection mechanisms and practices in EU member states are identified. Some of the core challenges in making these instruments comprehensive and effective include:  

1. Inadequate scope of existing data collection tools

While incident reporting systems exist across the EU, there is a notable lack of centralised, consistent data collection on violence against children (VAC) in detention. Without such a system, it is difficult to fully grasp the extent and complexity of the problem, as existing tools are often unable to capture all forms of violence, both quantitatively and qualitatively. The most common trend is to collect data only for the most severe and usually physical forms of incidents and most frequently when the violence occurs among peers (rather than when inflicted by staff members on children). Some countries explain the absence of a centralised system by pointing, in part, to the low number of children in detention, but this lack of comprehensive data hinders the ability to implement evidence-based responses, conduct effective advocacy and compare data across or within the EU.  

Furthermore, current tools often fail to adequately reflect the diverse experiences of children and the diverse forms of violence they can be victims of, particularly those from minority groups or the most vulnerable ones. Data collection efforts, while in place, are often used more as control instruments than tools for protection or policy improvement. A shift in focus is crucial to ensure that data collection identifies areas for safeguarding and policy reform. 

2. Insufficient disaggregated data to assess the impact of violence on the most vulnerable children  

While some vulnerabilities children may experience due to their personal or background characteristics are assessed upon entry to a detention facility and recorded in a child’s personal records, it remains unclear how such information is considered for when documenting incidents. There are ongoing concerns related to data sensitivity and variations in the definitions of vulnerabilities, particularly concerning LGBTI+ children, but also cultural or ethnic minorities. The lack of systematic information and of a specific sensitivity about the most vulnerable groups of children in detention means that there is a “blind spot” in understanding the challenges they face, which leads to difficulties in addressing their needs and to protecting them from violence. 

3. Lack of awareness among children and other key stakeholders 

While efforts are made to inform children about their rights and complaints mechanisms upon arrival to a detention facility, for instance through posters within facilities or intake procedures, questions remain as to the consistency and effectiveness of such efforts. 

In some countries, sensitisation initiatives conducted by Ombudspersons and civil society organisations also play a key role in raising awareness among the children in detention facilities. However, the involvement of key stakeholders, including lawyers, parents and legal guardians is often unclear. There is a need to continuously, meaningfully, and consistently inform and sensitise children throughout their stay in detention facilities, ensuring that the communication is child-friendly, understandable, and accessible to all. 

4. Response mechanisms and prevention of VAC in detention are not systemic  

Response mechanisms primarily work on a case-by-case basis, with more structured procedures reserved for what are considered the most severe forms of violence, often equating with physical assault. Systemic responses to VAC remain limited, especially when it comes to preventing and responding to violence against certain groups of children that may be more vulnerable to targeting.  Finally, addressing peer-to-peer violence remains largely traditional and punitive, instead of focusing on addressing the causes of such violence, and responding by addressing the harm experienced. 

Regarding systemic responses across member states, Ombudspersons for Children’s Rights have the potential to play a central role in ensuring consistency and accountability. However, this potential is hampered by insufficient resources and authority, making it essential to empower these figures. 

These insights from the research undertaken demonstrate that despite progress in the EU to address violence against children in detention, significant gaps remain in understanding, monitoring and addressing these critical issues for the EU and its member states.  

Collecting data is only the start 

Collecting data is only one part of the equation. Adequate resources and strategies are needed to meaningfully analyse the data collected – to  extract actionable insights for monitoring emerging trends in VAC and improving targeted responses. Additionally, it is crucial to gather comparable data across facilities and member states, enabling the development of robust policies at both national and regional levels.  

There is an urgent need for robust accountability systems and proactive prevention strategies. These might include training on non-violent communication within detention facilities and the use of restorative practices, not only to respond to violent incidents but, more importantly, to create an environment where violence can be prevented and avoided. Public authorities responsible for detention facilities must also embrace transparency and acknowledge that violence is a systemic, structural issue that extends beyond isolated, critical cases. 

To streamline data collection and reporting, centralised systems are essential both at the national and regional levels. Clearer guidelines for reporting and harmonising terminology regarding different forms of violence, especially non-physical violence, which is less easy to identify, can help ensure consistency and effectiveness of monitoring systems. 

These reflections underscore the complexity of addressing VAC in detention and highlight the need for more comprehensive, consistent and systemic approaches to protect detained children from all forms of violence. Collaborative efforts among facilities, systems and countries, along with the development of effective mechanisms, are essential to improving the situation and ensuring a safer environment for children, including while in detention. 

Addressing violence against children in detention is a multifaceted challenge that demands commitment from all stakeholders who are willing to protect children. By filling these gaps and addressing noted issues head-on, governments can ensure a future where children not only are in detention as a last resort and for the shortest time possible, but also, if and while in detention, they are safeguarded, supported and protected from harm.