Antoine Farrugia SDB MSC (Child Protection and Welfare) 2011

UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN
TRINITY COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK AND SOCIAL POLICY
CHILDREN OF THE STATE

A Case Study of Residential Care Provision for Children in Malta
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the
MSc in Child Protection and Welfare
Antoine Farrugia
Supervised by: Prof. Robbie Gilligan
August 2011
Declaration....................................................................
I affirm that this thesis is entirely my own work, and that it has never been
submitted as an exercise for a degree at any other university. I agree that the
Library may lend or copy this thesis upon request.
Signed:
________________________________________
Date:
________________________________________
The research work disclosed in this publication is partially funded by the Strategic Educational
Pathways Scholarship (Malta). This scholarship is part-financed by the European Union
European Social Fund (ESF) under Operational Programme II Cohesion Policy 2007-2013,
Empowering People for More Jobs and a Better Quality of Life.
Operational Programme II Cohesion Policy 2007-2013

Empowering People for More Jobs and a Better Quality of Life
Scholarship part-financed by the European Union
European Social Fund (ESF)
Co-financing rate: 85% EU Funds; 15% National Funds
Investing in your future
ii
Abstract............. .............
This thesis looks at the residential care provision for children on the island of Malta. Data is
garnered from a multiplicity of sources in an attempt to identify the children who are living in
residential care rather than with their parents or in other family-based arrangements. It then
proceeds to establish the residential facilities in which they are living and explores how the
system impacts their lives. By looking at official databases, policy and practice reports and
interview data, a complex and somewhat unsettling picture emerged. An unexpected result of
the research was the discovery of a number of invisible children living in the residential care
system in Malta, which highlighted the fact that the systems for keeping track of children in
residential care urgently needed upgrading. In the absence of any formal requirement for the
registration and monitoring of childrens residential care centres, a comprehensive list of facilities
in Malta was drawn up.
iii
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been possible without the assistance of those who supported me
during the last few months, gave of their time and contributed to it in many ways, not least of
which, my fellow Salesians, my family, colleagues and friends in Malta and Ireland.
In particular I especially wish to thank first of all my tutor, Prof. Robbie Gilligan, for his insights
and understanding of this field that helped me draw out certain significant aspects of this thesis
its limitations reflect only my relative inexperience at doing research at this level. Appreciation is
then also due to Dr Ruth Emond and Dr Helen Buckley whose depth of knowledge and
thoroughness will remain etched in my memory of the past two years, and also the other
teaching staff on the Child Protection and Welfare course at Trinity College Dublin whose work
and charisma were so inspiring.
I would also like to thank those who have shared the journey with me, particularly colleagues at
the Department for Social Welfare Standards (DSWS); social workers and interviewees; and the
many with whom I engaged in various ways but whose names, by agreement, remain
confidential; the gatekeepers of the various services who allowed me to interview their staff or
gave me access to the raw data, particularly the Directors of the various childrens residential
services in Malta; Ms. Yvonne Mallia (Operations Manager at Appogg, FSWS), Mr. Bryan Magro
(Head of Secretariat, MEEF) and Ms. Carmen Zammit (Chairperson, CYPAB); Mr. Josef Ebejer
(Commissioner for Data Protection); psychotherapists Paul Formosa and Audrey Agius for
accepting to support my interviewees; and the CYPAB Secretary, Ms. Stefania Piscopo, for her
unfailing patience and cooperation!
iv
Table of Contents
Declaration.................................................................... .....................................................................i
Abstract............. ............. .................................................................................................................. iii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Tables ................................................................................................................................ viii
Table of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter 1.
Painting a picture of Maltas Residential Child Care System .................................... 1
1.1
State Responsibility for Childrens Welfare in a Changing World ..................................... 1
1.2
A Renewed Focus on Residential Care Provision for Children .......................................... 3
1.3
Framing the Picture ........................................................................................................... 4
1.4
Exploring the Maltese Care System ................................................................................ 4
1.4.1
Rediscovering the Child in Care Population ............................................................ 5
1.4.2
Charting the Territory of Residential Provision......................................................... 5
1.4.3
Impact of the Care System on the Young Peoples Lives .......................................... 6
1.5
Chapter Conclusion: a Canvas and a Strategy ................................................................... 6
Chapter 2.
Residential Provision for Vulnerable Children: a Review of the Literature .............. 7
2.1
Children in Residential Care: difficult yet vulnerable........................................................ 7
2.2
State obligations in respect of residential care provision ................................................. 8
2.3
Functions and guiding principles of Residential Care ....................................................... 9
2.4
A model approximating to natural-family care ............................................................... 10
2.5
A therapeutic and purposeful system ............................................................................. 11
2.6
Implications and effects of placing children in residential care...................................... 12
2.7
Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3.
The Context of Residential Provision for Children in Malta .................................... 15
3.1
Historical Background ..................................................................................................... 15
3.2
Children and Residential Care Services in Malta............................................................. 16
3.3
Services accepting children without parental care...................................................... 17
3.4
Timeline: Services accepting Children Without Parental Care .................................... 19
3.5
Chapter 4.
4.1
A Process of Exploration ......................................................................................... 23
Designing the Research ................................................................................................... 23
4.1.1
Phase One: Processing the Placement Data .......................................................... 26
4.1.2
Phase Two: The Interview Process .......................................................................... 30
4.2
Ethical Concerns .............................................................................................................. 35
4.3
Conducting the Research ................................................................................................ 38

v
Chapter 5.
The Children who Inhabit the Care System ............................................................. 43
5.1
Childrens residential placements in Malta (2000 2010).............................................. 43
5.2
Care Orders issued on minors at risk (2004 2010) ....................................................... 45
5.3
Painting by Numbers: Children in Out-of-Home Care ..................................................... 46
5.3.1
Children in the care system according to the FSWS placement database .............. 46
5.3.2
Children in care: the CYPAB placement databases ............................................... 48
5.3.3
Placement Authority................................................................................................ 49
5.4
Children in Residential Care ............................................................................................ 50
5.4.1
Numbers and Ages of all children in Residential Care............................................. 50
5.4.2
Numbers and Ages of Children in care .................................................................. 52
5.5
Length of Time in Care................................................................................................... 54
5.6
Entering Residential Care: the chances of a long-term ticket ......................................... 54
5.7
Chapter 6.
Where are the Children? ......................................................................................... 57
6.1
Changes in Residential Facilities admitting children from 2000 to 2011 ........................ 57
6.2
Categorising Residential Provision .................................................................................. 60
6.3
State classification of residential facilities....................................................................... 63
6.4
The Organisation of the Residential Care System ........................................................... 64
6.5
Placement Patterns in the Residential Care System ....................................................... 66
6.6
End of the line: Children in the states psychiatric facilities............................................ 67
6.7
The Invisible Children within the Care System ................................................................ 68
6.8
Invisibility by Exclusion from the Care System? .............................................................. 69
6.9
One System or Three? ..................................................................................................... 70
6.10
The Maltese Residential Child Care System in graphical depiction................................. 72
6.11
A more realistic picture of the out-of-home care scene in Malta (late 2010) ................ 74
6.12
Chapter 7.
The Care System through the lens of Policy, Ideals and Reality.............................. 75
7.1
Challenging the status quo .............................................................................................. 75
7.2
Painting a picture of the Maltese Care System through official publications ................. 76
7.3
Recent Documents Influencing Official Policy ................................................................. 77
7.4
Themes Emerging from Policy Reports ........................................................................... 78
7.5
The Looked-After Children Review and the FSWS Operations Report............................ 79
7.6
Between Ideals and Reality: the Professionals views..................................................... 81
7.7
Chapter 8.
8.1
Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 89
A final word... .................................................................................................................. 94

vi
Bibliography................ .................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix 1.
Three Snapshots of Children in the System ......................................................... 108
Appendix 2.
The Legal Framework governing Care Placements .............................................. 109
Appendix 3.
The Updated list of all places of deprivation of liberty..................................... 111
Appendix 4.
The Financial Cost of Care .................................................................................... 113
Appendix 5.
Errors in the Datasets and in Official Publications ............................................... 119
Appendix 6.
Table of Placement Data and Children's Residential Facilities ............................. 125
Appendix 7.
Participants' Information Sheet and Consents Form ........................................... 129
Appendix 8.
Interview Guide .................................................................................................... 137
Appendix 9.
Survey Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 138
vii
Table of Tables
Table 1 Residential Services accepting Children Without Parental Care .................................. 20
Table 2 Snapshot data only revealed part of the range of residential facilities ........................... 28
Table 3 Facility Pseudonyms ......................................................................................................... 35
Table 4 Profile of Interviewees ..................................................................................................... 37
Table 5 Multiple sources of errors in the Datasets and Official Publications ............................... 39
Table 6 Why were children placed in residential care? (Daphne Project: 2003) ......................... 43
Table 7 Reasons for placement given by care staff (Cortis: 2000) ............................................... 44
Table 8 Reasons given for Care Orders
(CYPAB Dec 2010) ....................................................... 44
Table 9 Care Order Statistics extracted from the placement databases ...................................... 45
Table 10 Decrease in Residential Care 2000 - 2010 ....................................................................... 46
Table 11 A 'new' category of looked-after children ....................................................................... 47
Table 12 Breakdown of 'in care' population, with special emphasis on boys ................................ 48
Table 13 Placement Status (CICB & FSWS data) ............................................................................. 49
Table 14 Age-groups of Children in Residential Care in 2000 and 2010 (CICB & FSWS data) ........ 50
Table 15 Percentage of children under a Care Order in cohort of children in residential care ..... 52
Table 16 Boys in Residential Care under a Care Order (2004 and 2010) ....................................... 53
Table 17 Age category when the boys were taken into care (Dec 2010) ....................................... 55
Table 18 Boys' placement associated with age they are taken into care (Dec 2010) .................... 55
Table 19 Residential Care: an early start could mean a long-term reality (Dec 2010)................... 55
Table 20 Sixteen residential care services were reported to exist in 2000 (CICB) ........................ 57
Table 21 Facilities increased while Residential Placements decreased (2000, 2010) .................... 58
Table 22 Children 'in care' were accommodated in 32 facilities in a 6-month period ................... 59
Table 23 Categories of Facilities accommodating children (official records vs research data) ..... 60
Table 24 Children in the Detention Facility at Corradino ............................................................... 63
Table 25 Age Admission and Discharge thresholds ........................................................................ 65
Table 26 Dedicated Facilities and Overlapping Services ................................................................ 72
Table 27 Official Reports reflecting aspects of the Care System in Maltese Policy 2004 2011... 76
Table 28 Recent Practice Reports ................................................................................................... 79
Table 29 Boys 'in care' Jan 2005... and the same boys six years later ............................................ 81
Table 30 Some Children's Homes change address during the summer ......................................... 85
Table 31 Three Snapshots of Residential Provision ...................................................................... 108
Table 32 Particularly relevant legislation impacting on Maltese out-of-home care provision .... 109
Table 33 Care Orders 2006 2007: Procedure for calculating the number of new cases ........... 123
Table 34 Issues of reliability with respect to official Care Order statistics................................... 124
viii
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Database structures: FSWS Nov 2010; CYPAB 2005; CYPAB 2010/2011 ...................... 27
Figure 2 Boundaries get better defined as they become more deeply embedded in formality . 29
Figure 3 Interviews sought to explore children's life in care in the Residential Care system ...... 32
Figure 4 Reasons for insitutionalisation of children under three (2003) ..................................... 43
Figure 5 Reasons given for placement (2000) .............................................................................. 44
Figure 6 Reasons for Care Orders (CYPAB Dec 2010) ................................................................... 44
Figure 7 Redistribution of Care Arrangements ............................................................................ 47
Figure 8 Legal route of entry of children in out-of-home care (FSWS, Nov 2010) ....................... 49
Figure 9 Number and Age distribution patterns in Residential Care for 2000 & 2010 ................ 50
Figure 10 Numbers in Residential Care 2000 2010 ..................................................................... 51
Figure 11 Shift towards an older group of children in residential care from 2000 to 2010 .......... 51
Figure 12 Age distribution of children under a Care Order in Residential Care (Dec 2010) .......... 52
Figure 13 Trends and Proportions: residential in care cohort by age group (Dec 2004 & 2010) 53
Figure 14 86% of children in Residential Care were 'protected' by a Care Order for over a year . 54
Figure 15 CYPAB and FSWS datasets encompass different populations ....................................... 64
Figure 16 Hovering on the Edges of Care ....................................................................................... 69
Figure 17 Predominant age ranges of children in residential care facilities in the sub-systems ... 71
Figure 18 Maltese Residential Care Provision for Children (Feb 2011) ......................................... 73
Figure 19 Children in out-of-home care situation in Malta: late 2010 (best estimate) ................. 74
ix
Chapter 1. Painting a picture of Maltas Residential Child Care System
What do we know about children1 in Malta who are said to live in a Home rather than with
their family? Where do they live, and what is it like for them? This study endeavours to paint a
picture in broad strokes of these children and the unusual world they inhabit.
The first Chapter gives an overview of the context in which this research takes place, the
questions it attempts to answer, the strategy employed to depict the system of residential
provision and how this serves the children who get to form part of it. Chapter Two sets out the
basic knowledge and assumptions found in the literature and that today orient our thinking with
regard to children living in state care. Chapter Three gives a background of the Maltese care
scenario while Chapter Four details the process that went into designing and carrying out this
research. Chapter Five answers the questions around who the children in the system are, while
Chapter Six details the findings about the places they can be found in. Chapter Seven draws on
policy and practice documents and interview data with professionals working with these children
in order to highlight issues in the system that directly or indirectly impact these childrens lives,
and complement the picture of provision that is being drawn. Chapter Eight draws out the main
conclusions.
1.1 State Responsibility for Childrens Welfare in a Changing World

Children have a need and a right to be raised in a caring environment, where they are considered
precious and are truly loved and cared for (United Nations 1989: Preamble). Alas, this is not the
experience of all children living in their own families and for one reason or another some children
may need to be cared for elsewhere, for some time.
In most developed countries the state itself often intervenes to protect children when their
welfare is under serious threat, since children not receiving adequate care from their parents are
frequently considered to be at risk2 and sometimes also in need3 (World Bank 2006). Childrens
innate potential, vulnerability and dependence on adults, makes it imperative that states ensure
In this paper terms like child, young person, minor and their derivatives should be taken to
equivalently denote a person under the age of 18, unless otherwise indicated.
2
The term at risk is taken to mean that there is an increased likelihood that the child will come to harm.
3
In need often implies that some intervention is required to prevent the child from suffering harm.
they are protected (UN Secretary-General 2006: 5) and properly looked after whenever they are
deprived of parental care. Other families, faith-based organisations and NGOs often step in
(United Nations 1989: Article 20) and effectively exercise quasi-parental responsibility to create a
safety net for these children... yet the care that children without parental care4 receive often
risks being inadequate (United Nations 2010: 4).
Notwithstanding the best of intentions, interventions with children not infrequently leave a lot to
be desired (Farrugia, R. 2000: 127) and in some situations children end up worse off as a result.
Hence the torrent of reports and enquiries into the abuse of children in the care system
worldwide (Government of Ireland 2009; Pinheiro 2006).
From an ethical perspective all who work with children without parental care are invited to be
mindful of the extent to which these children are being cared for in society (ISS & UNICEF 2004).
Once preventive family work no longer remains an option, attention turns to the perceived
quality of alternative care the children may be receiving, such as the suitability of the
environments in which these children are placed (United Nations 2010: 7). Equally important are
issues around the process of how the most appropriate form of care for an individual child is
determined and delivered (United Nations 2010: 16).
State intervention in the area of care-giving can be indirect, supporting a childs parents to care
for the child or facilitating alternative arrangements. However, when the state intervenes directly
and has any child or young person committed [into its] care by an order, it takes on greater
responsibility for that child and, as happens under Maltese law, the state in these cases
frequently assumes the same powers and duties with regard to [that childs] care and custody as
the parents [...] of such child or young person would have (Laws of Malta [Chapter 283] 1980: 8).
Considering itself as a guardian of the common good, the modern western state tends to work in
partnership with parents and families, with policies favouring the conditions for family-based
care, so that minor children are raised in what remains essentially a private forum (United
Nations 2010: 20). However, in practice not all children can be raised in a family environment, so
the state also sets up or supports non-family based care structures, many of which are
traditionally provided by faith-based or philanthropic organisations (Courtney & Iwaniec 2009).
To these the state can delegate the day-to-day care but cannot divest itself of the responsibility
to provide special protection and assistance for these children (United Nations 1989: 20).
4
Children without parental care are children who are not in the overnight care of their parents (United
Nations 2010). In this paper it will be used to generally denote all children not living with their parents.
Changes are happening in Western society and Malta is no exception: traditional community
bonds based on personal and long-lasting relationships (Giddens 2009: 8) are being eroded by
individualism; demographic changes affect family and parenthood patterns (Council of Europe
2008) and new challenges are presented by international migration trends (Eurostat 2009).
What effect do these and other changes in society have on the children who live within a
complex web of care arrangements in modern society and depend on the safety nets of formal
and informal provision for their care? Only by taking stock of the situations these children face
can we be satisfied that childrens needs are being adequately met.
1.2 A Renewed Focus on Residential Care Provision for Children

In Malta residential care5 structures were set up in the 18th century (Muscat Baron et al. 2001)
and to this day the Catholic Church still runs many of them (Spiteri & Law 2010). Since 2003,
allegations of abuse have shaken peoples confidence in the service provided in childrens
residential institutions (Grech 2011). Some of the major providers of residential care for children
were already facing difficulties in sustaining their work along traditional lines, as the context in
which they operated had slowly changed and resources had become harder to come by. What
has not changed over time is the fact that a number of children still need ongoing care and
protection and not nearly enough families are willing to embrace them. Thus residential care
retains an essential role as a means of fulfilling the states obligations towards these children
under the Convention for the Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989).
Times have changed and the world is a different place in the twenty-first century, and yet:
One wonders what kind of child is presenting as being in need of care these days?
Insofar as there are children who are being admitted into residence in Maltese institutions for
children even today, further questions arise, such as:
Which are the residential facilities where these children live?
And ultimately, a question of quality becomes indispensable:
What factors characterise their experience in the system?
In this study, the term residential care will be used to describe any living situation which is not family
based and residential facilities will refer to the physical environment in which that care is provided (ISS &
UNICEF 2004).
In practice, this research will address these issues and, in attempting to answer these questions,
it will attempt to do so in a structured way:
a) Painting a picture of children in the Maltese care system;
b) Charting the residential facilities that receive them; and
c) Taking note of what policymakers and practitioners have to say regarding the impact the
system has on the children it purports to serve.
1.3 Framing the Picture

The picture of the Maltese residential care system that this study will paint will make better
sense if it is seen against its native context. As will be described in Chapter Three, the Maltese
residential care system has developed largely in an ad hoc manner:
in line with Maltese culture and tradition, alternative care for children temporarily or
permanently deprived of their family environment was mainly provided by trusted
voluntary or Church organisations;
in recent years, civil society organisations started taking a more active role, and their
impact on the present care system needs to be recognised and acknowledged.
1.4 Exploring the Maltese Care System

Internationally, a lot of research in the whole area of out-of-home care6 for children has taken
place. In recent years the local care system increasingly became the subject of a shared
discussion among professionals. Though no longer being solely identified with residential care
services, the central questions about the system today remain essentially the same7:
a) Who are the children it caters for?
b) Through what means and methods does it attempt to meet their needs?
c) And, ultimately, how are the children being served?
The term out-of-home care will be used in this paper to describe all the responses to children without
parental care, except adoption.
7
Conducting the research required practical choices around sampling and groups of children within the
care system to be made. These will be clarified in the Methodology. For time being the reader should keep
in mind that this research is mostly about children living in residential care facilities.
1.4.1 RediscoveringtheChildinCarePopulation
Asystemofcareexiststomeettheneedsofitsclients.Soasnottolosesightofthechild,the
groupofchildrendeemedinneedofresidentialcarewillbeattheforefrontofthisresearch.An
attemptwillbemadetodescribethisgroupbyinterrogatingcurrentofficialdatabasessoasto
outlinesomeofthisgroupofchildrenscharacteristics,byansweringquestionssuchas:
Howmanychildrenarethere?
Whatreasonsaregivenfortakingthemintocare?
Whatdoweknowabouthowtheyinteractwiththesystem?
1.4.2 ChartingtheTerritoryofResidentialProvision
Whilechildreninoutofhomecaremayspendasizeablechunkoftheirchildhoodinanumberof
residentialfacilities,itisdifficulttoidentifyhowmanyofthesethereareinMaltasincecertain
adultfacilitiesalsotakeinminorswhenanacuteneedforplacementarises.Acomprehensivelist
of residential care services is not available since Malta appears to be probably the only state
withintheCouncilofEuropethatdoesnotformallyinspectorevenregisterchildrenshomes
(Gudbrandsson 2008) though it must be said that Andorra, Armenia, Georgia, Hungary and
MacedoniadidnottakepartinGudbrandssonsresearch.
Thisresearchwillidentifychildrenandresidentialfacilitiesbyseekingproofoftheirexistencein
therecordsofplacementseffectedinthelastsixyears.Aswillbedetailedinthemethodology,
thisexercisewillyieldarangeoffacilities.Sincefacilitiesofanidenticaltypetothoseidentified
mightsimilarlyofferresidentialservicestochildren,theywillbecontactedtoestablishwhether
or not they are places where children could be voluntarily accommodated, or placed by the
authorities,foratleastanovernightstay.
Facilitieswillbeclassifiedaccordingtodistinctivecriteria:takingnoteoftheirclientpopulation
andchiefcharacteristics.Theresearchwilltestcommonlyheldassumptionsregardingtheextent
to which a group of Homes that provide a dedicated childrens service remain the mainstay of
childrensresidentialcareprovisionintheMalteseislandsinthisdayandage.
1.4.3 Impact of the Care System on the Young Peoples Lives

How well is the 'system' meeting the needs of the young people it is meant to serve? Space in
this research does not allow us to treat this question with the depth it deserves, yet to start
getting a sense of the answer, this study looks briefly at two sources:
a) The perspectives of policy makers, researchers and other professionals working in this
field are presented to describe the greater picture arising through themes extracted from
recent official policy and practice documents;
b) Qualitative feedback received from interviews with professionals working with children in
care will help flesh out the picture of children entering, living in and leaving the Maltese
residential care system.
1.5 Chapter Conclusion: a Canvas and a Strategy

This chapter declared the intention to sketch a picture of residential provision for children in
Malta and to then see how some of these children were faring recently as well as what recent
reports have to say regarding the issues relevant to residential provision. Taking a case-study
approach as the research process should provide a multi-dimensional appreciation of what the
system looks like, and balance this with an understanding of the impact it has on the users lives.
Having briefly described the strategy to be followed and the context in which the research is set,
the next step is to indicate some of the underlying concepts that are central to the field of
Residential Child Care, especially in Malta. Awareness of these concepts gives a depth of meaning
to the findings and arguments that will thereafter be presented and the conclusions reached.
Chapter 2. Residential Provision for Vulnerable Children: a Review of the

Literature
In addressing residential care provision for children in Malta, this research is concerned with
children who are cared for by the state apart from their family; the care they receive; the Care
System they enter; and that which happens to them once their life becomes entwined with it.
The research builds upon what the literature indicates as being characteristic of these children
and others in similar situations; it addresses the implications of states duty to care; the functions
of residential provision in meeting childrens needs; the contemporary appropriateness of the
dominant model of care; and the organisation of the care system. Finally the research will briefly
look at what is known on how the system impacts on those forming part of it.
2.1 Children in Residential Care: difficult yet vulnerable

Studies on residential care shed light on childrens placements within a complex system (Clough
et al. 2006; Dept. of Health 1991; Packman & Parker 1968; Rowe et al. 1989). They indicate that
most children in out-of-home care are not orphans and have relatives who could sometimes care
for them (Csky 2009: 5) although states often have (Thoresen & Liddiard 2011) or are required
to assume responsibility for them (United Nations 2010). Frequently hailing from poorer
backgrounds (Bebbington & Miles 1989; Franzn et al. 2008); these children are considered
vulnerable (Finkelstein 1991: 2; OCfC 2010b) and have commonly experienced violence, abuse
and separation from their families but also possess strengths, competencies and resilience
(Kendrick et al. 2008).
Childhood vulnerabilities vary according to age: infants risk being insufficiently stimulated within
institutional settings (Fisher et al. 1997) while leaving care is known to be a delicate time for
young people, who may require considerable support and aftercare (Mayock & OSullivan 2008)
as they experience compressed and accelerated transitions to adulthood (Stein 2004, 2006)
that leave them prey to situations such as early pregnancy (Barn & Mantovani 2007), increased
risk of suicide (Brandon et al. 2010: 32; Brandon et al. 2009), trafficking and sexual exploitation
(Lay, Maggie et al. 2007), homelessness (Vakili-Zad 2006) as well as mental health problems
stemming from prior experiences and a tough life (Lay, Margaret & Papadopoulos 2009).
7
Possibly abandoned by their parents (Browne et al. 2005: 16) who might be incapable of looking
after them because of illness or imprisonment, disability or family circumstances (Cantwell 2005:
6), these children may find themselves alone, with no one to depend upon, sometimes in a
foreign land (ISS & UNICEF 2004: 3). Others may have left home as a result of domestic violence
(UNICEF 2000) or were removed from their parents care by the state to safeguard their welfare
(Browne 2009: 7).
Access to alternative care is gained by one of two routes: a placement voluntarily requested by
the parents or else wanted by the state (Johnston, D. 2011) though not necessarily on a
permanent basis (Bain 2009). The assumption of parental responsibility gains the state rights
over the looked after child8 but also duties (McRae 2006: 107).
These children are seen as difficult. Unable to live at home, their behavioural problems escalate;
slow to trust they have difficulty forming meaningful attachments (Finkelstein 1991). The
traumas of childhood abuse give rise to complex needs that, compounded by their challenging
behaviour, may lead them into the mental health system or in court (Clough et al. 2006: 101).
2.2 State obligations in respect of residential care provision

States have a duty to care for children without parental care in a variety of situations (United
Nations 1989). Guidelines for the Alternative Care of children developed in wide consultation
with stakeholders (Cantwell 2010; Keshavarzian 2011; United Nations 2010) stipulate that care
arrangements should be conducive to a childs development and distinguish them according to
their setting: either as family-based care (United Nations 2010: 9) or residential (i.e. non-familybased) settings ranging from family-like arrangements to institutional living conditions. Good
practice dictates that all residential institutions should be accredited and registered on the basis
of national Standards and Regulations (Council of Europe 2005).
The organisation of care provision and the task of looking after children in residential settings are
both sensitive and difficult (Hosie 2006; Mainey & Crimmens 2006) and the impact of
arrangements in a childs life varies: some placements are temporary, others can last throughout
childhood and beyond (ISS & UNICEF 2004: 4). Deficiencies in planning, review and timely
decision-making coupled with a lack of clarity regarding the expected duration of arrangements
8
The term looked-after child will be used in this study to denote a child placed in out-of-home care
irrespective of whether that placement is made voluntarily or on foot of a Care Order.
(Kane 2007: 5) leads to children drifting in care (Department of Child Safety 2006: 3) and likely
to become stuck in the system for a long time (Rushton & Dance 2002).
Thus monitoring, inspection and data-collection mechanisms should also be in place (Cantwell
2005) while resources in the system need to be adequate for the task (Attard 2010; Bayes et al.
2008; Calleja 2010; Eurochild 2007; United Nations 2010).
2.3 Functions and guiding principles of Residential Care

The ideal place and method to rear children is determined by culture (Smith 2009) and in modern
Europe this is taken to be the family - thus preventive measures should be in place to avoid outof-home placements when possible (Council of Europe 2005). However, following rigorous
participatory assessment, removal of a child from the care of its family may become necessary
and appropriate (United Nations 2010), whereupon a care plan should normally be drawn up and
periodically reviewed and used to guide the placement (SOS Children's Villages 2009: 5; United
Nations 1989: art 25).
The children themselves ought to be involved in the placement decision and stay in care only as
long as they really need to while a permanent placement is worked out (Council of Europe 2005).
James Anglin believes that residential care is not a destination but a transitional service of 1-2
years of intensive work (Hillan 2005). While in placement children need to be protected from
possible harm and their rights to proper standards of physical care, education and health upheld.
Principles of good practice apply to the care workers tasks as well as to the Units management
so as to foster positive outcomes and mitigate any potential negative impact on the children.
Residential care fulfils functions with regard to the wider welfare system as well as to individual
children (in Tizard et al. 1975). It preserves family links by its ability to care for groups of siblings
together and provides a less emotionally demanding option for young people who might not
want family-based care (Whitaker et al. 1998).
Milligan says that residential care absorbs placement breakdowns (in Tizard et al. 1975) and
family emergencies, and aids reception into care (Berridge 1985); it provides a holding, nurturing
and supportive environment (Sharpe 2007) to children who are frequently disturbed; provides
the possibility of treatment for those who need to make changes to their behaviour and may
9
even take on assessment functions (Beedell 1970; Wagner & Sinclair 1988: 68-124). Services may
offer long-term shelter and upbringing for some (rather damaged) children and train them with
skills in preparation for independence (Sinclair & Gibbs 1998: 241). Other services may just offer
custody or possibly protection, treatment and high support (Anglin 2002).
2.4 A model approximating to natural-family care

Residential Care settings may be said to be group-living arrangements in specially designated
facilities where adults ensure care for children who cannot be looked after by their family due to
the latters inability or unwillingness to do so (BCN et al. 2010). Yet, care provided in a facility
with a capacity of more than 10, staffed by salaried carers or volunteers [...] and based on
collective living arrangements (Cantwell 2010) is generally criticised for being institutional
(Browne 2009; EveryChild 2008: 4; Pinheiro 2006; Tolfree 2003). Todays preference is for
domestic-style provision where children can receive greater attention in a more normal
environment.
In western Europe small family-type homes are increasingly replacing large-scale institutions.
They appear to evolve in three stages: first by attempting to meet individual childrens needs
within the institutional structure; then by pursuing similarity between the childrens physical and
social environments and those of their peers; and lastly by focusing on childrens right to familylike care (Gudbrandsson 2004).
Even facilities not constructed in accordance with the most appropriate and modern design
criteria (Docherty et al. 2006) may still be adapted to some extent (Escobedo & Fernandez 2002:
47; Fernandez Del Valle & Casas 2002) and used sensibly, for residential care is not
institutionalisation if it responds to the right child at the right time, is conceived as a family-type
or small group home, and is directed towards preparing the child for return home or another
stable non-residential living environment (Cantwell 2005: 14). Indeed though family-based
solutions are generally to be preferred to institutional placements, residential care is not
necessarily institutional (Cantwell 2005) and can be a positive choice (Crimmens & Milligan
2005: 1; Wagner 1988).
10
2.5 A therapeutic and purposeful system

Good residential care is often meant to be therapeutic, planned and purposeful needing
coordination and multiple supports. Childrens interests are best served by staff sensitively and
effectively responding to the young peoples pain and pain-based behaviour and consciously
trying to develop a sense of normality in the Home, a space from which the youngsters can
then move on to engage more successfully with life in more normal environments outside the
facility (Anglin 2004). Individual and strategic planning; good management; attention to
educational continuity, family contact and consistency of care (Clough et al. 2006); networking
with the wider community; as well as resilience-building (Daniel et al. 2010) are key components
to good residential care placements.
Residential care is often used in emergency situations until a sudden crisis blows over. Ideally
however, a child should enter care in a planned manner as a short-term or long-term measure,
sometimes to prevent the irreversible breakdown of long-term arrangements. Clarity as to the
purpose of the placement is important and as this may not be clear from the outset a timelimited residential placement may be called for to enable a childs needs to be assessed away
from his home environment and thus determine the most appropriate form of subsequent
placement. Certain categories of children may also require therapeutic support (Anglin 2002).
For consistency between stated aims and practice (Lane 2011) a system of care should include
five main processes (Anglin 2004: 188):
a) An intake and assessment process;

b) A placement planning and review body;
c) Main types of care provision:
i.
Emergency Shelters
ii.
Short-term Receiving and Assessment Facilities
iii.
Mid- to Long-Term Residences
iv.
Residential Therapeutic / Specialised provision
v.
Semi-/Independent Living Facilities
d) Good connections between residential and non-residential services;

e) Monitoring and Inspection processes.
11
2.6 Implications and effects of placing children in residential care

So many children in residential care end up there because of their parents' problems, not their
own, and then may be subjected to abuse by the system in general (Gil 1982). They
suffer
losses of familiar people and places when they come into care; losses of carers while in care
when these change jobs; and loss of connections with staff and peers when they, in turn, leave
care or are moved on (DoC-CSS & PeakCare QL 2010). While the number of placements children
go through need to be limited in order not to harm them further, leaving care ought to be given
due attention with different options for support and accommodation being made available for
children becoming part of this vulnerable category (Kelleher et al. 2000).
Links with the family

Children need to retain a rooted sense of self (Finkelstein 1991) but coming into care disrupts
childrens attachment to their primary caregivers. Contact with relatives keeps their sense of
family and belonging alive (Millham 1986: 118) and good practice requires that siblings should
not be split from each other unnecessarily when placed in care (Council of Europe 2005).
The Staff
Young people respond positively to ongoing healthy relationships with staff (DoC-CSS & PeakCare
QL 2010: 54) which makes for quality care. Guidelines relevant to care staff indicate that
residential care facilities should be run by stable, sufficient and diversified staff, particularly in
terms of gender (Council of Europe 2005).
The residential component

Children who are institutionalised in their first few years of life risk their growth being stunted by
lack of sufficient attention to their needs. Deficits show up in stereotypical behaviour, in the way
they relate to their peers and in what they are likely to do when aroused or bored, for instance
(Canali et al. 2008; Fisher et al. 1997: 80; Trster 1994).
Institutional care is also often stigmatising (Sinclair & Gibbs 1998), however, informed by
research, new versions of group care are starting to resemble something radically different from
their institutional predecessors. It is becoming clearer that good quality group care can be a
positive choice for some children (Davidson 2008), a tool to support positive individual and
12
group behaviours for staff (Emond 2004: 206; Hicks et al. 2009: 842) and an appropriate resource
for certain children (Fulcher 2001). The effect of size in group care is not clear as Sinclair and
Gibbs appears to be the only major research that unequivocally supports the notion that smaller
is better (Chipenda-Dansokho & Centre for Social Policy 2003: 9). Researchers are split on the
issue of residential care as a method (Anglin & Knorth 2004). Living in a group has its positives
but it could also increase childrens exposure to misconduct by those they live with, usually their
peers (Little et al. 2005: 204). The main danger however is that once a child becomes a
resident, care systems tend to retain the children entrusted to them whereas family
reintegration should be the prime objective of alternative care (Cantwell 2005: 14).
Social work intervention and care provision

Residential interventions with children can differ according to the complexity of their needs, the
level of supervision and boundaries required to work with them, and the intensity of the
therapeutic component in their care service provision (Clough et al. 2006: 99):
Thus children with relatively straightforward needs that may be urgent but not necessarily drastic
or long-term would require either short-term or relatively ordinary substitute care, and have a
reasonable expectation of returning to their family and progressing in life without being at
serious risk of further harm.
On the other hand, unpredictable children with deep-rooted and complex needs, who may have
a history of difficulty and disruption, violence, abuse or neglect are likely to require more
specialist care, psychological support and treatment for themselves as well as social work
intervention with their family.
Stigma and the need for normalisation

Children in residential care want their lives to feel normal (Gilligan 2009) yet services can
stigmatise those who use them (White 2008; Who Cares? Scotland 2004; Wilkinson & O'Hara
1988). Efforts at normalisation and deinstitutionalisation (Daphne Programme et al. 2007) can
reduce this stigma but require improved resources: in the quality and design of buildings
(Docherty et al. 2006); in the pay and conditions of staff members; and in the range of
residential provision, in order to afford choice and the availability of the most appropriate
placements (Scottish Government 2007).
13
Little, Kohm and Thompson (2005) argue that in group living situations, potentially damaging
effects can be mitigated, provided care homes are small, staff agree on aims and methods
(Schmied 2006: 23) and managers feel in control of admissions (Sinclair & Gibbs 1998: 211), while
facilities specifically catering for minors (Schiraldi & Zeidenberg 1997) reduce the risks for them.
Temporary solutions and permanency

Residential intervention in childrens lives carries risks since, through being cared for away from
home, looked-after children risk permanently losing their place within a family (Johnston, D.
2011). The situation of children who have greater difficulties in forming meaningful attachments
and may be slower to trust (Finkelstein 1991) may be compounded by a series of broken-down
placements. Arrangements should give due regard to ensuring children a stable home; to
meeting their basic need for continuous attachment to their caregivers; and for making
permanency a key goal from the earliest possible moment (Cantwell 2005: 13; United Nations
2010: 5, 17) as this is a fundamental objective of taking a child into care (Waddell et al. 2004),
and though there may be multiple ways of achieving permanence (Kirton 2008: 264) they all
imply attachment and stability.
2.7 Chapter Conclusion

Though this whole research is based on a particular territorial reality one has to keep in mind the
major themes and approaches relating to children in residential care expounded on in this
chapter in order to draw any conclusions about what is happening to these children within Malta.
In-depth knowledge of the sector brings forth the points of reference for good practice that
enable us to explore and recognise the strengths and deficits of associated provision. The next
chapter will provide an overview of the context in which such residential provision for children in
Malta developed, grounding the research in the Maltese context and supplying the necessary
background to the approaches that will subsequently be taken.
14
Chapter 3. The Context of Residential Provision for Children in Malta
Not all issues that concern children in residential care will apply equally to the Maltese context.
Cultural and historical variables may well interact with local jurisdictional variations in
determining applicability. Today, routes of entry to care are changing due to factors such as
migration, illicit drug use, juvenile delinquency, tolerance levels within society and the
reorganisation of services on the ground. These and other factors nowadays play an increasingly
important role in determining what provision of care services is felt to be necessary in response
to the range of issues with which children, families and professionals have been struggling in
recent years. Further details regarding the legal background to the Maltese states responsibility
in relation to out-of-home care provision for children are provided in Appendix 2.
3.1 Historical Background

Residential care facilities in Malta have existed since around 1700 (Muscat Baron et al. 2001) with
some of the current Homes having been set up as far back as 1888 (Attard 2011) and 1904
(Skee 2011). These functioned along lines that were broadly similar to the rescue and recovery
model of the UKs National Childrens Homes (Archdiocese of Malta 2011; Clough 2008),
a possible reflection of the islands colonial past. In brief:
Children can be lawfully placed in the Homes by their parents. Others are placed by the
authorities that collaborate with the Homes since placements nowadays take place in a
context in which a number of statutory bodies have a say.
The state has obligations towards all children without parental care (United Nations 1989:
3(3); 20; 25) but children removed from the custody of their parents and taken into the care
of the Minister by a Care Order effectively become the Ministers responsibility and enjoy
greater protection in practice (Farrugia, R. 2005; Laws of Malta [Chapter 283], art. 5).
Within the Ministry responsible for social policy there are two statutory bodies: the
Department of Social Welfare Standards (DSWS), and the Children and Young Persons
Advisory Board (CYPAB), established by law (Laws of Malta [Chapter 283] 1980).
The Foundation for Social Welfare Services (FSWS) provides a huge chunk of the states social
work services. It incorporates three Agencies: Appogg, Sapport and Sedqa, offering
prevention and treatment services, both in community and residential settings within the
respective fields of: children, families and communities; substance abuse; and disability
(FSWS 2010).
15
Partly financed by the state (Govt of Malta 1998: 137) Church organisations sought to
respond to the emerging needs of the times in which they were set up, catering for up to 89%
of the residential care provision for children in Malta (Eurochild 2010). The facilities available
to them were mainly institutional, developed through philanthropy and mostly as a response
to changes in society brought about by the industrial revolution and the post-war situation.
These services aimed to provide shelter, food and caring, along with a Catholic upbringing, to
the young people referred to them, and sometimes in-house education (OCfC 2006: 161).
In recent years civil society started playing a bigger role:

-
NGOs operating homeless shelters started accepting minors when dedicated options
were not available, conscious that their services were not really indicated for children.
An NGO started operating residential services in the field of mental health.
A significant development brought about by the international situation was the setting up of
AWAS, a government agency to handle the states statutory obligations vis--vis the floods of
refugees and Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers (Laws of Malta [L.N. 205] 2009).
3.2 Children and Residential Care Services in Malta

Malta is a small country of around 400,000 people that has experienced much social change and
a nearly 25% growth rate in population post World War Two (Govt of Malta 2002). Maltese
society used to provide for children who did not live with their parents through the good services
of the extended family and through certain Catholic organisations. In 1956, there were 15
orphanages spread around Malta and 3 on the smaller island of Gozo. The Church ran almost
every residential child care facility and the staff were all religious (Sultana 1987). In 2000, a UN
body chided the country for the length of time children tended to spend in care (CRC 2000).
Developments continue to this day, often registering limited success (Muscat Azzopardi 2006).
Children in out-of-home care have recently been studied in connection with the challenges they
pose to the education system (Cefai 2006); in relation to their health (Muscat Baron et al. 2001);
from the perspective of the social services available to them (Farrugia, A. 2006) as well as the
general local situation of children exhibiting very challenging behaviour (OCfC 2006). The childin-care population appears to be changing: children of all ages are becoming more demanding
and while aftercare used to mean supporting their reintegration into a family that wanted them,
lately the more damaged and needy children coming into care have a much more turbulent
relationship with their families. They are also perceived as increasingly needing a different kind of
help: therapy to counter their more complex needs (Zammit McKeon 2008, 2010).
16
With more individualistic lifestyles gaining ground in society, young people leaving care and
receiving less support from their family run the risk of ending up homeless, an invisible and not
readily admissible condition in Maltese society (Vakili-Zad 2006), which has attracted increased
attention in recent years (Muscat Azzopardi 2009).
3.3 Services accepting children without parental care

Children that are not in the overnight care of their parents are found in a variety of services in
Malta. Some are very clearly residential services for children, while others address the needs of a
different population but in certain circumstances also accept minors.
Prior to 1990
Table 1 indicates the residential facilities available in the late twentieth century. Unless cared for
by their extended families, children without parental care were often placed in one of the
Childrens Homes run by Catholic organisations until they grew up and returned to their family or
made their way into the world, not unusually emigrating (Attard 2009). Those who were gravely
disabled went to Id-Dar tal-Providenza, a four-house complex that presently cares for about 100
persons between the ages of 9 and 80 (Dar tal-Providenza 2009). Some religious communities
also accepted minors to live with them, often by way of nurturing vocations for their Order.
The Nineties
As society became more complex a need was felt to address the needs of children with
challenging behaviour, and provision was made for psychiatric wards at the two islands General
Hospitals. A small psychiatric facility for children (Young Peoples Unit) was set up and a
therapeutic unit for difficult girls was also opened (Programm Fejda). Villa Chelsea started
providing a supportive therapeutic environment for people with mental health problems
(Richmond Foundation 1999) to which people aged 17 to 65 could be admitted. The drug
problem exploded around this time and various residential services were set up for those wishing
to kick the habit, soon including minors. The plight of a 14-year old economic migrant in the
Corradino Prisons prompted an ad hoc collaboration between the authorities and the Salesians of
Don Bosco, who had one of their schools declared a place of detention by way of a Legal Notice
(Govt of Malta 1994) so as to remove the child from prison and provide him a better
environment in which to grow and develop. Increasing juvenile delinquency (Battistino 2006) led
the authorities in 1996 to open the Young Offenders Unit, a section for young males in prison.
17
Challenges of the New Century

The relentless pace of social change saw childrens needs becoming more acute with more young
people being taken into the care of the state. The Churchs Homes and Hostels struggled to cope
with unruly adolescents of an increasingly younger age, who sometimes had their behaviour
problems appraised from a medical angle and turned over to the mental health services (Williams
2006: 18), or were kept in prison simply because there was nowhere else to put them (Grima
2010) or were more often returned home to an abusive situation because of...
the serious gaps in the out-of-home care facilities for minors needing
protection, and the breakdown of placements which have children and
adolescents being prematurely re-integrated with their family where
protection cannot be assured. (FSWS 2011: 148)
Social pressures led to a decade of experimenting with targeted residential services. A childrens
Home was closed and then transformed into a time-limited therapeutic programme called KIDs,
designed to meet the needs of very disturbed children aged 5 to 12. Another therapeutic unit,
this time for adolescent males (Formula One) was dismantled barely two years after opening.
Shelters were set up for homeless adults and admitted minors as young as 13, but these
arrangements remain unsatisfactory. Addiction services increased and at times admitted minors.
Society toyed with the idea of a separate detention facility for female youths, while disability
services were further developed. Minors were even hosted in shelters for Domestic Violence and
ad hoc residential arrangements that reflected the creativity of social workers and dedicated
carers who accepted to look after youths nobody else was able to offer a place to.
None of these problems were made any easier by the phenomenon of irregular migration that
saw a new system being set up on the fly to accommodate thousands of people, among whom
were many unaccompanied minors in need of residential care and for whom the state became
automatically responsible.
While the foster-care system developed practically from scratch in the 90s (Govt of Malta 2001a)
and all these targeted services were being set up, the traditional system of low-budget Childrens
Homes that relied on unpaid work by members of Religious Orders, was under considerable
stress associated with an aging staff and the new challenges posed by disturbed children (Govt of
Malta 2001a), and in fact experienced a reduction in the number of placements offered. One
exception was Don Bosco House in Balzan, a six-bedded long-term residential childrens Home,
managed by a Religious Order but staffed exclusively by lay people (Salesians of Don Bosco 2008).
18
3.4 Timeline: Services accepting Children Without Parental Care

Table 1 below reflects the development of residential services from the immediate pre-1990
period to the present day (August 2011). Since no comparable list of services is to be found in the
public domain, the list in the third column was compiled during the course of this research in a
process that will be explained in later chapters. It is being provided at this point simply to clearly
illustrate the changes exposed above as residential services developed over the years. Further
explanation will follow in due course.
In this table, facilities exclusively accepting minors are indicated in bold type as this will give a
better idea of the mix of services. However, given the complexity of dynamic situations over
time, the following notes may help shed light on the situation of some individual services:
This denotes a facility that has closed down in the last decade, sometimes after multiple
changes of function, name and management (Lourdes Home, Jesus of Nazareth,
Frate Francesco/Formula One/Dar il-Qawsalla).
Facilities that are no longer hosting children without parental care (Gilji Bojod, Open Centre,
Police GHQ, Good Shepherd, Hal Far Tent Village, Hal Far Detention Centre, Lyster Barracks,
Safi Barracks).
YMCA Dar Niki Cassar: No Longer accepting children without parental care.
YMCA Minors: Services indefinitely suspended.
Fatima House In 2010 its client group was widened and the age of admission lowered to 16.
Osanna Pia Facility has changed function and client population several times since it was
opened: aftercare hostel / childrens Home / young adult shelter / facility for UMAS. As of
June 2011 it is functioning as a facility for male homeless youths aged 16 to 25, providing a
care structure that favours the youths move to independent living.
Sapport While on the day of enquiry there were no more minors left at the Sheltered
Homes, plans are at hand to admit minors to their services once again in the near future.
St. Edwards College Service launched and residences due to open in September 2011.
Dar il-Madonna tal-Mellieha is a community home that primarily caters for elderly
residents but also presently functioning as a home for a schoolboy and another young adult
with special needs.
Religious Communities no longer keeping minors in residence except for a few days live-in.
Savio Salesian College No longer functioning as a Place of Detention.
19
Table 1 Residential Services accepting Children Without Parental Care
Childrens
Home
Hostel
(adults &
adolescents)
Pre 1990s
1990s
Angela House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
St. Jeanne Antide
St. Josephs (Hamrun)
St. Josephs (Zabbar)
St. Patricks
St. Rita
St. Theresa
Ursuline Creche
Jesus of Nazareth
Lourdes Home
Fatima House*
Osanna Pia*
Dar Frate Francesco
Programm Fejda
MCH Adult Wards: M,F, J,HW,S
Domestic
Violence
Addiction
Merhba Bik
Disability
Dar tal-Providenza
Young Peoples Unit

Villa Chelsea
Psychiatric Unit (Malta Hsp)
Psychiatric Unit (Gozo Hsp)
Santa Marija Cmty

Dar l-Impenn (Detox)
OASI Residential Cmty
San Blas Therapeutic Cmty
Justice
Religious
Boarding
General Wards (Malta H.)

General Wards (Gozo H.)
Paediatric Wards (Malta H.)
Paediatric Ward (Gozo H.)
Corradino Prisons
Dar Leopoldo
Dar Teresa Spinelli
YMCA Adults (Dar Niki Cassar)*
YMCA Minors Shelter*
KIDs
MCH: Mixed Admission Ward
Formula One
Sapport Homes (Vaj1 & 2, Mtfa)*
Ghabex
Gozo Crisis Intervention Centre
Dar il-Vittorja
OASI Halfway House
San Blas Harm Reduction Shelter
Dar il-Kaptan (Respite)
Dar l-Arka (Respite)

Dar Nazareth
Dar il-Madonna tal-Mellieha*
Dar is-Sliem
Dar il-Liedna
Dar il-Qawsalla
Good Shepherd Complex
Hal Far Tent Village
Hal Far Detention Centre
Lyster Barracks
Safi Barracks
Open Centre
Police GHQ
Neonatal & Paed ICU (Malta H.)
Rainbow Ward (Malta H.)
Young Offenders Unit

Savio Salesian College*
YOURS 2 (Females temp. section)

Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl
Refugees
Medical
Don Bosco House

Dar Gilji Bojod
Dar Frate Jacoba
Homeless
Shelter
Mental
Health
Post 2000
Certain Religious Communities*

St Edwards College (Boys, Girls)*
20

As Maltese society developed, the services for children and families in need became more
articulated. In particular, the residential services for children appear to have mushroomed but
experimental set ups, in particular, remained fragile. Children were likely to be accepted into
services sometimes on a planned and sometimes on an ad hoc basis as the sector remains to this
day largely unregulated. Securing particular outcomes for children requires a level of clarity in
service planning and provision which calls for a systematic exploration of the field. The following
chapter details the steps and considerations that went into formulating the approach of this
research in search of precisely such a goal.
21
22
Chapter 4. A Process of Exploration
Having exposed some of the relevant literature pertaining to considerations within the field of
children in out-of-home care as well as provided an overview of the Maltese context, this chapter
will detail the methodological considerations within which this study explored the system of
Residential Care for children in Malta.
The process can be described in three key stages:
1) Research design
Attention is first given to the research question and to the challenges encountered in:
a. extracting and collecting the data;
b. making the process robust by adopting a case-study approach and certain
strategies to increase the reliability of the findings.
2) Ethical considerations in the research process are indicated around three nuclei:
a. Researching childrens placements in out-of-home care;
b. Myself as a practitioner-researcher;
c. The interviews with the professionals and factual data.
3) Doing the research:

a. presented challenges and gave rise to learning points;
b. Reflections along the way led to an acknowledgement of some limitations but
also some strengths, both in the research itself and in the way it evolved.
4.1 Designing the Research

My aims were clarified as I went along: reading, thinking and processing statistical data to see
what it could yield; formulating questions, rewriting them and planning on getting them
answered to my satisfaction. However, the basic thrust remained to identify the children in the
system and to appreciate the practical issues around care provision that impacted upon their
welfare.
23
Achieving my Aims through a three-pronged Case-Study Approach

The whole purpose of the research was to paint a picture of children in the Maltese Residential
Care System and my approach was to use three sources of data to paint this picture:
information gleaned from official placement databases (complemented with a survey);
interviews with professionals involved with the children;
policy and practice documents, where the bigger issues interacted.
Why three sources? The first exploratory phase of the research suggested that gaps and blind
spots in the system were being reflected in the available data. This could be countered by
widening the net of data sources (Schwarz 2005) and building redundancy into the research
design through a case-study approach (Chad 1998), i.e. one that combines different kinds of
evidence and data collection methods (Eisenhardt 1989) with the focus being on the system,
rather than on any service user. In my case I chose to triangulate database analysis and interview
data with a review of emerging issues weaned out of current policy and practice documents.
My practitioner background lent itself to both inductive and deductive research processes as I
sought to read the Maltese residential child-care system both in the light of prior theory as well
as from the patterns emerging in the research.
The strategy I pursued in order to paint a picture of the Maltese Child Care system was:
a) to describe the client groups;
b) to describe the residential facilities;
c) to seek insight into how the system impacted on the children it purported to serve;
The Research Questions

The aim of my Research Question was to cast a first encompassing glance across the Maltese
residential child care system while narrowing down the field in a systematic and structured way.
Keeping the clients at the centre of the process, I desired to find out:
1. Who are the children the Maltese Residential Care system caters for today?
2. Where are they to be found? and
3. How are they being served?
It quickly became obvious that these apparently simple questions held an amazing potential for
complexity, and so the research was designed in multiple stages.
24
Engaging in the research entailed sourcing a range of items of information:
Question
Data Sourcing and Processing
Yielded:
Who are the children the

Maltese Residential Care
system caters for today?
placement database FSWS Nov 2010

placement database CYPAB Dec 2010
placement database CYPAB May 2011
Malta: Newspaper reports
Malta: C4C Reports and Inquiries
Malta: Homelessness report
Malta: Court Sentences
Council of Europe documents
Interviews
Parliamentary Questions
Email contacts with EU and UN bodies (Strasbourg,
New York)
Trawling through:
- Paper File records checking dates and names
- Legal depository: Laws of Malta and Legal Notices
- Malta Environment and Planning Authority Policies
Operations Reports and official documents
Malta University past theses.
Placement databases of CYPAB combined (increase in
numbers of Care Orders) 2004 2011
placement databases of CYPAB combined
Ages;
entry to
care;
type of
children in
need of
residential
care;
extent of
need;
official
recognition
etc
Explored categories in many ways:

Internet keyword search residential childrens
home care placement young people youth
detention boarding stitut, names of residential
service providers, websites;
Reviewed publications giving history of placements (eg
religious homes, boarders);
Email researchers, past colleagues, Govt Depts., SWs
Added others of similar type in that category
Spoke, telephoned, asked, emailed, face-to-face,
Initiated a survey (template)
Interviews
Error-correction processes in databases
list of new cases in January 2005
placement database CYPAB Jan 2005
Interviews with 15 people
Newspaper reports, etc.
7 Policy Reports
2 Practice Reports
Places
they
COULD be
living in
Where are they to be found?

(i.e. places ANY children...)
Extracted List of facilities
Categorisation of facilities
Extended list of possibilities
Lists of facilities pre/90s/post
How are they being served?

What factors impact on the
childrens in care
experience?
Documentary analysis
Views and issues of policymakers and practitioners
25
Places
children
lived
List of
issues and
discussion
around
them
4.1.1 Phase One: Processing the Placement Data

Data Sourcing
Data regarding children in residential care is logically held by each service provider and by the
Looked-After Children team of the Maltese social services agency, Appogg. This team is already
sufficiently burdened by front-line work (OCfC 2011) and its research requests are filtered by the
Research Department of Appoggs parent organisation: the Foundation for Social Work Services
(FSWS). I made a simultaneous request for data to the FSWS and to the Ministry responsible for
social policy. The Ministry granted me full access to the data published in monthly lists by the
Children and Young Persons Advisory Board (CYPAB) detailing all children under a Care Order
between the end of 2004 and May 2011.9
The Working Databases and Data Sampling

Following negotiations in January 2011, I was told that the Foundation could only provide me
with the anonymised data of the children that were in out-of-home care on 4th November 2010,
which I received in the form of an Excel workbook.
The CYPAB secretariat provided me with Excel files containing 73 monthly databases, each of
which contained from 187 to 287 different names: a total of more than 18,000 entries. These lists
had developed over time and took on more of the complexity of databases, as indicated below.
After spending considerable time learning techniques for data manipulation in Excel and
experimenting with the data, I decided to sample the data and work particularly on the first list
(CYPAB Jan 2005) and with the latest list I had received until then (CYPAB Dec 2010).
Later during the research I included another sample, the most recent list made available by the
CYPAB secretariat (CYPAB May 2011) in order to check for variations in population and ensure
the degree of relative consistency within the CYPAB data as there were certain discrepancies with
figures appearing in official reports (CYPAB 2010). The advantage here was of using up-to-date
data and further validating the picture emerging from the December 2010 snapshot.
Every month, this list is sent to the Police, to the Passport Office, to the Ministry responsible for social
policy and to the Ministry for Justice and Home Affairs. They are the only compilation of data on children
under a care order that are divulgated throughout the system by a state authority. Since the end of 2004
these lists have been providing and disseminating a monthly snapshot view of the national situation
regarding placements of minors in care.
26
Having processed the 73 monthly databases provided by the CYPAB to extract trends related to
the in care population, I combined all the months unique placement references into one big
aggregate list and several smaller ones (grouped by year) and then accessed the individual
months databases according to need.
Structure of FSWS database:

The workbook contained 5 sheets, named:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Status of Care Orders

Residential 041110
Moved to Fostering
In Fostercare
Living at home
Aftercare
:
:
:
:
:
:
Inside entitled Status of Looked-After Children

List of children in Residential Care
Inside entitled Moved from Residential to Fostering
Children in Foster Care
Children living at home or alternative placements
Presumably children who have recently left care
Sheets 2 to 6 contain the following structure:

No. Placement /
Surname Name Age Social Worker Unit Gender Basis of
Present Address
Admission
(withheld)
(withheld)
(Vol/Crt/CO)
Structure of CYPAB 2005 databases:

Name
DOB
Parents' Name
Structure of CYPAB 2010 / 2011 databases:

Gender
Police
Number
Date
Issued
Place of
Origin
Reason
Issued
Name
Parents'
Name
Placement
Figure 1 Database structures: FSWS Nov 2010; CYPAB 2005; CYPAB 2010/2011
In all, I selected four sets of snapshot data to work with:
Limited to all children in care

(i.e. on whom there is a Care Order )
Dataset intended to provide a picture

of all children in out-of-home care
a) CYPAB Jan 2005*

b) CYPAB Dec 2010
c) CYPAB May 2011
d) FSWS Nov 2010
* This dataset did not contain any placement indications.
27
Identifying Facilities Where Children in Residential Care Live

A comparison of the snapshot and 6-year aggregate data lists (Table 2) indicated that some
categories of facilities which cater for children living in residential care are missing or
underrepresented in snapshot pictures of the system. The CYPAB list in December 2010 indicated
that 115 local children were in 24 residential care facilities in Malta. FSWS data indicated a
population of 209 children in 25 residential care facilities in November 2010, which included
children looked-after on voluntary placements:
Table 2 Snapshot data only revealed part of the range of residential facilities
Category of Facility hosting

children without
parental care
Number of Facilities
encountered in
snapshot data
FSWS
CYPAB
Nov 2010
Dec 2010
14
14
Number of Facilities
encountered in aggregated
CYPAB placement lists
2005-2011
Childrens Home
Hostel (adolescents & adults)
Homeless Shelter
Mental Health Facility
Disability
Refugee Services
10
Addiction
Domestic Violence Shelter
Justice
1
Totals:
25
24
14
42
The discrepancy in the numbers of facilities was an eye-opener: some facilities could have closed
down in the seven years under observation while others might not have been hosting children
without parental care at the time a snapshot was taken. Data for categories 5, 6 and 7 raise the
problem of defining which children were to be considered looked-after10 and with it the
question of what kind of service/facility was to be considered as offering residential care. It was
also possible that there could be children living in residential care on the basis of private
arrangements and so the facilities that hosted them might not necessarily appear in any official
list of children in residential care, at least certainly not on these childrens account.
10
Malta lacks a legal definition of who is a looked-after child.
28
Inclusion Criteria for the Population Under Study

To establish a measurable inclusion criterion I followed the distinctions made by the UN
Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (United Nations 2010).
While children in detention, as well as children in residential care, and children on a school trip
for a few days away from home, may well be examples of Children Without Parental Care, the
UN Guidelines indicates as Alternative Care such formal or informal care provided to a child as
a result of his or her parents inability or unwillingness to look after him/her. The care of a child in
a non-family-based residential environment of any kind is considered to be formal care (United
Nations 2010). This situates Children in Residential Care squarely within the group of Children
in Alternative Care, along with those that live in a family-based environment.
While children could slip in and out of these categories with a certain ease, the sample of
children under a Care Order who were in residential care were supposed to be the most clearly
defined group, whose boundaries were clearly distinguishable by arrangements made with
elevated levels of formality. These were the children for whom the state therefore carried most
responsibility and in view of a relative homogeneity, they were the ones which were most
indicated for the purpose of this study.
Figure 2 Boundaries get better defined as they become more deeply embedded in formality
For the purposes of this paper, children indicated in the datasets as being placed under a Court
Order (as opposed to a Care Order or Voluntary placement) are not classified with the Care
Orders cohort, since they do not fall under the CYPABs remit. These cases usually come about
29
when parents fail to agree to an out-of-home care placement for a child whose case does not
meet some threshold for the issue of a Care Order, and so the Court itself decides on the request
for admission. Such often takes place in the context of separation proceedings with neither party
allowed to remove the child from the placement without reference to the Court, an often
difficult situation, in each case governed by an ad hoc procedure, and affecting a small but
increasing number of children in out-of-home care.11
Sampling in view of the 2nd Phase of the Research
A preliminary analysis of the data led me to believe that although there were differences
between various groups of children in the system, to gain some insight into the impact of the
care system on the children it would suffice to work with a subsample of the data. I chose to
focus on a sample of male children in care and more specifically on long-term clients that were
present in my first sample (CYPAB Jan 2005) and would not have aged-out of residential care in
the second sample (CYPAB Dec 2010).
In the CYPAB Jan 2005 sample there were 55 boys aged less than 12 years.
In the CYPAB Dec 2010 sample 46 of these boys were still in the system,
of which:
6 were now living with their birth family
23 were in foster care
17 were in residential care [ ... and constituted my starting point for the interviews ]
4.1.2 Phase Two: The Interview Process

Some of the preparatory work for the interviews was carried out by email while I was in Ireland;
however I travelled to Malta for three two-week periods to carry out most interviews in person.
Choice of Participants
The second stage of the research sought patterns in the lives of those children who formed part
of my sample of long-term residents. I sought to interview professionals who worked with those
children in order to pick out patterns and similarities in the childrens lives that in some ways
reflected the impact of the system upon them. The choice of participants was limited, some
leeway being provided by the fact that more than one person worked with each child in my
sample, and thus I could count on a number of professionals being available.
11
FSWS data indicate between 8 and 36 children in out-of-home care by virtue of what is known as a Court
Order: 2% in 2005, 3% in 2007, 4% in 2009 (FSWS 2011: 188), 8% in late 2010 (FSWS Nov 2010).
30
Through the Eyes of Policy and Practice Documents

Documentary analysis of official reports and publications produced between 2003 and mid-2011
were used to highlight five common areas of official concern. These were to be considered
alongside the proposed goals for development suggested by the external review of the lookedafter children system carried out by Jane Aldgate, James Blewett and Wendy Rose (2008).
Some of the developments could be contrasted with the strengths and fragilities of current
practice by drawing upon the latest available Operations Report of the Foundation for Social
Welfare Services (FSWS 2011).
The Story on the Ground

Patterns were sought starting from an exploration of the lives of a number of children who at the
end of 2010 were living in residential care: a group of boys subject to a Care Order and who had
spent at least six years in care. These kind of children were particularly relevant to the state in
terms of assumed responsibility. Events in these childrens life in care were likely to reflect some
of the strengths and weaknesses of the 'system' of residential provision in Malta and thus could
not be overlooked.
Interview Design and Pacing

The interview was generally conducted keeping in mind the frame of reference graphically
depicted in Figure 3. This included:
a) two points of reflection on the residential services
towards the start of the interview (warm-up and two priming questions: Q1 & Q2);
towards its closing moments (one question: Q11);
b) two points directly reflecting childrens movements in relation to the placement
entry into the system (three questions: Q3, Q4, Q5);
and exit from the system (two questions: Q9, Q10);
c) and three points reflecting the childrens experience
Engagement with the system (Q6);
Quality of the placement (Q7);
Duration of the placement (Q8).
31
Thus the interview guide (Appendix 8) consisted of eleven questions about the different stages
and dimensions of the care placement and of the childrens lives in care. These served as a
starting point to elicit responses and about the care system in general. Most interviews lasted
between 40 and 75 minutes and interviewees could direct the interview towards issues that held
more significance for them in relation to some particular child. Figure 3 illustrates the areas
touched upon during each interview (reading it left to right) with the focus being on some
particular childs concrete experience (topics indicated in the middle section of the diagram):
Figure 3 Interviews sought to explore children's life in care in the Residential Care system
An Extension of the Research

Given the way the children in my sample happened to be grouped I needed to conduct interviews
with ten professionals in order to gain insight into the concrete experience of all the boys in my
sample. However two of the scheduled interviews (Charmaine*, Pauline*) and the first two
datasets analysed (FSWS Nov 2010, CYPAB Dec 2010) produced unexpected information that
revealed the presence of invisible children within the Residential Care system an unexpected
development.
Thereafter, in all cases where there was an obvious discrepancy between a Units nominal
capacity and indications extracted from the available data regarding its official population, I
enquired further and came across a number of residential care facilities that were hosting
children that did not show up in the records. Upon reflection I decided that this was an important
factor in relation to my topic and for completeness sake it was necessary for me to explore this
lead further. I returned to Malta to carry out four more interviews with professionals closely
involved with the care system (Maria*, Mike*, Charmaine*, Laurence*), repeatedly corresponded
by email with another (Amanda*) and undertook a mapping exercise of residential provision,
identifying possible missing service providers through a systematic snowballing technique,
according to the category of facilities identified in the data.
32
Knowing when to Stop

Given the nature of a process of discovery, there were two scenarios in which I decided I had
reached the point when I should stop digging for information:
1) When the search for facilities in each identified category stopped turning up new data, I
took this as a sign that I had more or less exhausted the field. Greater certainty would have
required a process of registration to be in place, which is not the case in Malta.
2) There were also occasions when I only needed to confirm the existence of a single
exemplar and one such occurrence was encountered, after which I could safely stop
searching for new information. Such was the case of religious communities accepting
children without parental care to spend some time in residence with them for instance:
thereafter I did not need to approach every single religious community in Malta.
3) On those occasions when I needed to prove an important point however, a solitary case
could be taken to be an exception and so I had to search for sufficient cases to confirm the
possibility that a pattern existed. Such was the case with the invisible children when I
was only satisfied of picking up some sort of pattern within the residential care system
after coming across three residential facilities appearing to be hosting children on the basis
of private arrangements, and this in the context of a wide range of unregulated facilities
where the same kind of arrangements could easily be entered into.
Mapping the Landscape of Care

The statistical data in the FSWS and CYPAB databases lent itself to data mining techniques by
means of which a list of residential facilities where social workers had placed children between
2005 and mid-2011 was extracted. A number of those facilities did not normally cater for children
and would have gone undetected had some childs placement there not been recorded. The
discovery of undocumented placements suggested that there could be further unlisted children
living in some kind of residential care arrangement. This needed to be flagged in the research.
I decided to work on the assumption that if one service in a particular category accepted children
without parental care, then others in the same category could be assumed to accept children
unless the contrary were proven. For this reason the process I used was to add a service to the
list if it fitted a category and only remove it once it resulted that the service did not
accommodate children. A survey template was designed to receive the following information as
well as contact details of the person plus a note of the date this information was provided.
33
The original is reproduced in Appendix 9. This is an English translation of the survey template:
i.
Whether the service had provided overnight placement to any child without parental
care during 2010 or 2011;
ii.
The name of the service;
iii.
The length of time the service had been running;
iv.
The maximum nominal duration of placements and the maximum duration in practice;
v.
The reasons for any exceptions;
vi.
The age groups of the children accommodated;
vii.
The minimum and maximum ages on admission;
viii.
The gender/s of the residents;
ix.
Whether they could accommodate any parent/s at the same time as the child;
x.
A brief description of the service;
xi.
Whether the service is affiliated to some particular parent organisation;
Documentary analysis in a Case Study approach

The third part of my research question was concerned with the fit between the childrens needs
and the system that was there to help and support them. Many variables would presumably hold
sway over such interaction, and this supported the appropriateness of a case study approach to
research, both because of the how question being asked, and also because the focus was on a
contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context (Yin 2009). Jarvis also suggests that a casestudy is particularly indicated in the situation of a practitioner-researcher (Jarvis 1999: 85) with
which I identified, having worked in the field I was researching.
Since in recent years there were a number of official bodies who had addressed the needs and
workings of the Maltese care system for children, I intended drawing upon a documentary
analysis of their contributions to contextualise the emerging picture of residential provision for
children. I wished to see whether utilising multiple sources of evidence would lead data to
converge in a triangulating fashion and reinforce the messages emerging in the statistical and
interview parts of the research. This way of doing research contributes to understanding
complex social phenomena and has the advantage of allowing research to capture the holistic
and meaningful characteristics of real-life events (Yin 2009: 4). The case study approach in this
instance contributes both to the process of researching residential care provision as well as to
the findings produced by the research (Jarvis 1999: 77).
34
4.2 Ethical Concerns

The main ethical concerns in this research gravitate around three issues: the personal data
regarding placements in care; my role in researching an area I was involved with; and the
interviews with professionals.
Placement data: access and processing

Personal data is not meant to be freely available to all and must be treated with sensitivity and
protected from misuse. Thus the gate-keeping function is of utmost importance in personal social
services and I needed to engage in sometimes drawn out negotiations to gain access to
placement data of children. Access to the information I was requesting was obtained by recourse
to the gate-keeper. Upon explaining what I wished to do most authorities granted me permission
to access data and approach their staff.
Much as I wished it were otherwise, the data stored in the CYPAB databases was not anonymised
and coded. This called for a different strategy around protecting childrens rights to privacy. The
fact that there were errors in the data (such as names being spelt differently from one month to
the next) thwarted my initial intentions of automating the process of anonymisation of records
by assigning a code to each case before starting to work with the data: a computer would have
treated a misspelt name as a different person, even though to a human observer the mistake
might have been obvious. Thus to clean up the data from errors I had to substitute anonymity
with confidentiality. In any case I intended to maintain the data in encrypted form and even
backed it up to an encrypted memory stick, apart from seeing that peoples initials were used in
the interview transcript and making sure their personal details did not make it into the research
report or were otherwise inadvertently disseminated. Facilities names were substituted by
pseudonyms in the interview transcripts and are indicated by an asterisk. Finally, commitments
were also made regarding the deletion of personal data once the research was over.
Table 3 Facility Pseudonyms
Pseudonyms assigned to Residential Care Facilities in the Research:

Treetops
Graceland
Colourburst
Lilliput
Monkeyspace
Eaglenest
Rupertsville
35
Myself as a practitioner researcher

At some stages of the research I experienced the tension that can arise from having a dual role. In
one case I was processing data and noticed a particular discrepancy in that some clients who I
knew from my practice role were certainly living in a particularly restrictive situation, were not
being flagged as such in the official data which was being disseminated about them and therefore
senior service administrators and policy officials were possibly not being made alerted to
particularly onerous situations. Instead of merely noting this fact I felt I needed to point this out
to the gatekeeper as the situation was unjust with respect to some young people: the message
was taken on board and the situation with the records rectified.
Another two cases involved a strong urge on my part to respond to an interviewee out of a
practice role, knowing that this conflicted with my role as a researcher at that moment. In these
cases I carried on with the interview and checked on the situation with the interviewee when we
had finished. I was conscious of not being strictly a researcher since my sense of self-identity had
been formed through my practice role, as Jarvis points out (Jarvis 1999: 8), but I learned how
straddling two roles took more energy to focus on the task at hand. The final challenge of this
conflict remained to maintain clarity during the research. This presented a huge temptation
since, egged on by experience, I could read too much into some situation which arose in the
research. As Jarvis also suggests (Jarvis 1999: 81), I needed to be careful not to claim more
validity for the findings than I would be able to demonstrate.
Interviews with Professionals

Wishing to learn more about how the care system impacts on the child in care, I had sought to
interview a number of professionals. Young people are already further disadvantaged by the
system that is set up to protect them (Buchanan 1995) and I did not wish to expose them further
by direct enquiry into their lives. In my opinion, professionals were also likely to have a more
objective view of the childrens journey in life. My having approached their line managers and
received prior authorisation was quite reassuring for the interviewees who were nevertheless left
free to supply their informed consent for an interview. This idea of informed consent derives
from the high value we attach to freedom and a respect for the individuals right to selfdetermination (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias 1996: 82). In view of having been a line manager
to some of these professionals, going through their new line manager was particularly important
in obtaining their voluntary participation.
36
Every potential interviewee had received the Participants Information Sheet (Appendix 7) by
email and later as a hard copy and therein I had identified my dual role, asked for their voluntary
participation, and mentioned my wish to record the interview and established a shared meaning
around confidentiality (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias 1996: 89), agreeing not to identify the
person by their name or work location. In the Sheet that we discussed briefly at the start of the
interview, I had indicated that they had some time to think about their participation and that
they had a right to retract any or all of what they would tell me simply by contacting me by April.
I also provided the participants with a choice of two psychotherapists with whom they could talk
for support, should they be upset about anything. This proviso was appreciated because a small
number of participants did get quite emotional during the interviews. Their identities were
protected by the use of pseudonyms in the research indicated by an asterisk (Table 4).
Table 4 Profile of Interviewees
IntervieweeW
1. Chris
2. Daniel
3. Pauline
4. Jeanine
5. Ben
6. Jim
7. Tim
8. George
9. Doris
10. Francesca
11. Mike
12. Charmaine
13. Maria
14. Laurence
15. Amanda
Z
Residential social worker
Experienced residential manager
Keyworker in a residential setting
Keyworker in a residential setting
Residential care worker
Residential manager
Experienced social work administrator
Residential manager
Residential Social Worker (correspondence)
Note:
Residential Social Workers - All had at least 5 years experience
Experienced - Denoted staff with over 20 years experience
37
4.3 Conducting the Research

During the course of the research I encountered a number of challenges, most of which I put
down to inexperience and some to the limitations of technology and human nature. However I
have tried to learn from them all by acknowledging that research is a process to be engaged with.
Data Protection Objection: Recourse to the Commissioner

Obtaining the statistical data from the Foundation was a stumbling block in that the data was so
anonymised as to be of very limited use (no names or ages were provided). Confidentiality was
cited, but I disagreed with this stand. In fact, to quote Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias, while
the home is considered one of the most private settings in our culture [...] however, the extent
to which a particular setting is public or private is not always self-evident... and in effect this
aspect may lead to ethical controversies (1996: 87). The second reason I was given was based
on data protection grounds. I asked permission to set up a meeting with the Data Protection
Commissioner who eventually confirmed that there were no legal grounds prohibiting the
Foundation from providing me at least with the ages of the children in care.
Errors in the Databases

Unfortunately the FSWS dataset turned out to contain some obvious errors, such as boys
indicated as girls living in a facility which simply does not cater for girls, and vice versa. There
were also children who were indicated as being 18 years of age, when this is contradictory,
and other entries which were erroneous or confounding, such as a table of children entitled
Moved to fostering with their Present Address indicating a residential facility... While some of
these apparent errors lent themselves to be corrected on a best guess basis, none of this
facilitated my taking an accurate snapshot of the system from this dataset and in the absence of
validation, the most that this dataset could do was present an approximate picture of the
situation of children in residential care in Malta.
The 73 CYPAB databases also needed cleaning up, since they also suffered from inaccuracies, but
in their case, the database often contained sufficient redundant information to allow correction.
Colour-coding was utilised in the first few years to distinguish females in the database but this
was a fragile way of indicating gender. In some cases an individuals gender could not be
deciphered even from his or her name. This was frequently a difficulty associated with names of
children of mixed descent and with the large number of unaccompanied minors that landed in
Malta from Africa. These were automatically protected by a Care Order and their names were
prone to misspelling or even changed from one month to the next if a correction was entered
38
into the database, but in most cases, an identifier (Police Number) helped make the connection
between different lists. Dates of birth also had an annoying habit of being entered alternatively in
British and American notation. Such inconsistencies required manual checking with the original
files, a rather time-consuming exercise. Further, the data in these lists was not accurate to the
day, but contained data pertaining to the whole month. Thus if a case was closed on the first
day of May it still appeared in the list at the end of May. It must be noted therefore that all the
CYPAB data reproduced will be accurate to the month, not to the day. Given its consistency, one
must keep this proviso in mind when comparing numbers and statistics. Many of the errors in the
CYPAB databases however were typical of manual input of data into a spreadsheet, and would
have been minimised had dedicated software been used. Unfortunately these kinds of errors
make it into the official publications and data disseminated by the state, a compilation of which
has been put together in the course of this research.
An extensive account of the errors encountered and how they were dealt with is provided in
Appendix 5.
Table 5 Multiple sources of errors in the Datasets and Official Publications
The CYPAB Datasets

Dates of Birth
Date of Issue of Care Order
Difficulties with Names
Gender
Placement Identifiers
The FSWS Database
Organisation of Looked-after Children Data
Ages
Gender
Placement Identifiers
Official Publications
(Mismatching Data on Care Orders)
UN CRC, 1998 State Party Report

Children (National Statistics Office 2002)
Children 2010 (National Statistics Office 2010)
CYPAB Annual Reports
Included for Comparison
The research data
39
Learning from the Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were held between February and April 2011. Most were face-to-face
while one was conducted over Skype, which made it prone to technical difficulties as the
connection twice dropped in the course of the interview.
I did not conduct a pilot interview but learned and adjusted my style as I went along.
Experimenting with interview techniques I realised the benefits of introducing less structure in
the interview and phrasing certain questions differently, leading the interviewee into the
questions on the interview guide and then modifying the pace according to which questions
seemed to release more energy from the interviewee. I noticed that my talking less allowed
interviewees to say more and that they appeared to feel more at ease whenever I started the
interview by asking him or her to say something about themselves in relation to this field.
Sometimes I realised that a question elicited a textbook answer that seemed to jar with
something I had been already told, so to arrive at the reality I had to ask very specific questions.
For instance, to find out whether a small facility was kept open at the weekends it was best to
enquire as to how many children had slept there last Saturday evening...
Collection of Factual Data

Towards the end of the research I needed to interview a small number of additional people so as
to produce a map of the services in the field. Efforts to fill-out a Template referred to previously
included face-to-face contact, visiting organisations websites, contacting people by telephone as
well as by email during the periods I was in Ireland. Most people were cooperative and in the one
case when a manager declined to provide me with certain information about their service she
still consented to my contacting one of her staff.
Telephone and email contact were not always reliable either, and while in one particular case it
proved difficult to contact a person who could reliably answer my queries, in some others it was
rather frustrating waiting for a reply to an email which sometimes never arrived.
Finally, when it came to the interviews and documentary analysis sections, I was aware that some
of the themes resonated with me not only because they stood out from the data but also
because they came from my prior understanding of what happens to these children in the
residential care system. Gery Ryan and Russell Bernard (2003: 88) support this view about the
40
generation of themes and call it an a priori approach. Its validity would be better supported if
in future somebody elses reading of the same documents concurred with mine in the analysis of
emerging themes and issues.
Further Methodological Limitations

The research I undertook had an exploratory nature but was limited in many ways in relation to
the very wide objectives I had set. The attempt to map an unregulated sector with practically no
clerical resources that I could rely on for support, as well as my personal bias as a practitionerresearcher have also to be factored into the equation of limitations insofar as that could have
influenced some part of the results obtained, or my interpretation of them.
However limitations are opportunities within which to discover strengths. That the statistical
data I was given contained avoidable errors is a good example to note. By the simple fact of
having spotted errors in these datasets, successive datasets could be rectified. This was already
the case with the CYPAB database: the monthly-updated database of children under a Care Order
in Malta has already benefitted from the observation that children in a certain setting were never
actually recorded as living there ever since this database started to be kept.
There is also the possibility that the range of issues encountered by the boys I focused upon
would not be the same issues that girls who are their contemporaries might be facing. This is
being pointed out as some results may not be valid if they are generalised beyond the population
studied.
Summing Up and Moving Forward

In conclusion, having set out the way I designed the research, some of the ethical issues I had to
consider and the way I went about conducting the research and modifying it to better suit my
purposes, I will now proceed to set out the context in which my study took place.
41
42
Chapter 5. The Children who Inhabit the Care System
In this first of the findings chapters we will attempt to identify the children in the Maltese
residential care system in the present and foreseeable future. Having already provided an
overview of the context in which residential provision for children has developed in Malta, the
figures below convey an idea of the actual quantities involved and the range of reasons for which
children enter care.
The next step then involves looking at the trends in the population of children in the residential
care system in the last ten years and extracting details from placement databases about the
length of time these children remain in care and therefore directly under the states
responsibility.
5.1 Childrens residential placements in Malta (2000 2010)

Two studies which give reasons for which children were placed in residential care in the past,
indicate abuse as a main contributing factor:
a project intended to map the number and characteristics of infants in residential care in
Europe, with data gathered in 2003 (Table 6, Figure 4) (Daphne Programme et al. 2005);
and a local study (Cortis Micallef 2000) on childrens homes (Table 7, Figure 5).
Table 6 Why were children placed in residential care? (Daphne Project: 2003)
Reason
Orphans
Abandoned
6.8
Abuse/Neglect
22.7
Disabilty
Other
Orphans, 0
Abandoned,
6.80%
Abuse /
Neglect,
22.70%
0
Disabilty, 0%
70.5
Other,
70.50%
Figure 4 Reasons for insitutionalisation of children under three (2003)
43
Table 7 Reasons for placement given by care staff (Cortis: 2000)
Main reason
Neglect
17
Sexual abuse
Physical abuse
Parents' Addiction
Parents' mental/
physical health
Death of parent/s
10
Parents in prison
18
3
Other
19%
More than
one reason
15%
Parent/s in
prison
3%
Sexual abuse
2%
Physical
abuse
Parents'
9%
mental/
physical
health
18%
Death of
parent/s
3%
More than one reason 15

Other
19
Neglect
17%
Parents'
Addiction
14%
Figure 5 Reasons given for placement (2000)
Table 6 and Table 7 indicate how, a decade ago very few children in residential care in Malta
were orphans (Govt of Malta 2003), while research data (CYPAB Dec 2010) indicating the reasons
for which care orders were issued details how much abuse is a factor that must be taken into
account when providing services to these children nowadays (Table 8, Figure 6).
Table 8 Reasons given for Care Orders
Reason for issuing a Care Order
(CYPAB Dec 2010)
No. %
Lack of Control
Neglect / physical / emotional / sexual abuse
232
81
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeker
51
18
Neglect / physical /
emotional / sexual
abuse
81%
Unaccompanied
Asylum Seeker, 18%
Lack of Control
1%
Figure 6 Reasons for Care Orders (CYPAB Dec 2010)
44
5.2 Care Orders issued on minors at risk (2004 2010)

The Ministry for Social Policys Children and Young Persons Advisory Board (CYPAB) issue a
monthly list of children under a Care Order. They review these childrens cases every six months
but are coming under mounting pressure as their caseload seems to be increasing. Attempts to
study this trend led to the discovery of important discrepancies with respect to the quality of
data so far published on children in care.
Table 9 provides some insight into the number of cases processed by the CYPAB. Each year, new
Care Order cases are taken on board while others are revoked or closed, usually because children
reach their 18th birthday or are deemed to be no longer in need of protection (CYPAB 2010). In
any case in recent years the CYPAB have to attend to many more cases than the end-of-year
active caseload list suggests.
Table 9 Care Order Statistics extracted from the placement databases
Statistics
for the
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Active COs at
Unique Cases
the end of Dec
processed
of this year*
during this year
204
194
253
212
262
217
271
245
294
278
311
286
334
No. of cases in
No. Of Unique
published list cases appearing in
for December all this years lists
Unique (full) Care Orders handled 2005-2010:

Number of new COs issued post-2004:
Unique COs handled

from 1st Jan 2005 to
the end of this year
253
336
401
485
563
621
Total no. of children
covered by a CO since
end 2004
Post-2004: New
Cases first appearing
during this year
49
83
65
84
78
58
Difference between
total of accumulated
cases from Dec to Dec
621
-
417
* The January 2005 database indicated the new additions for that month, thus it was not difficult to
construct the end of year dataset for 2004.
45
5.3 Painting by Numbers: Children in Out-of-Home Care

Having briefly rendered an idea of the context in which in Maltas residential child-care services
operate, the research will now look at the children in the system in more depth. By presenting a
breakdown of the population of children in the care system (that will be referred to as lookedafter children) and children under a Care Order (i.e. referred to as children in care) we shall
attempt to make important distinctions among these children as they appear in the system.
5.3.1 Children in the care system according to the FSWS placement database
In 2001 Government issued a report proposing a financial contribution to children in out-of-home
care. This report, entitled The Children in Care Benefit (Govt of Malta 2001a) indicated that in
October 2000, there were 374 children in out-of-home care. Data extracted from the FSWS
placement database for November 2010 indicates that there were 386 children in out-of-home
care (Table 10):
Table 10 Decrease in Residential Care 2000 - 2010
51
Total of
Out-of-Home
care
374
Looked-after children
living with family or in
other arrangements
-
Total number of
children looked-after
by the FSWS
374
177
386
51
437
Children
in...
Residential
care
Foster
care
Oct 2000
323
Nov 2010
209
Table 10 also indicates that there was:

a) a slight increase in the out-of-home care population;
b) a huge shift from residential care to foster care as the current placement in 2010;
c) the emergence of a previously unreported or inexistent category of looked-after children,
which may not be an accurate description of this category, given that the basis for
deciding that a child is a looked-after child are far from obvious, especially in those cases
where there is no Care Order in force.
Moreover, residential facilities in Malta are sometimes suspected of keeping scant or no record
of essential placement documentation (such as the parents consent for admission in the case of
minors placed there voluntarily) which raises questions with regard to the placement procedures
being followed and consequently the reliability of any reported data.
46
The diagram in Figure 7 indicates the out-of-home care population. The uncertainty surrounding
the third category of the FSWS Nov 2010 dataset is symbolically depicted by the cloud
surrounding the circle indicating children in Residential Care and Foster Care:
Year 2000
(n=374)
Year 2010
(n=386)
Residential
Care
Foster Care
209
177
Other
arrangements
51
Figure 7 Redistribution of Care Arrangements
The FSWS November 2010 database gives the following breakdown for this apparently new and
somewhat fuzzy category of looked-after children (Table 11):
Table 11 A 'new' category of looked-after children
Looked-after children living at home

or in other arrangements
Living with parent/s
Extended Family
With prospect. adopters
With father's partner
With family friends
Living with friends
Living independently
With mother in a shelter
37
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
Total
51
Moreover, the state has been issuing Care Orders on hundreds of refugee children for years.
However this new and heavy influx does not feature in any of the categories within the Nov 2010
FSWS database since responsibility for these was passed on to a new government agency.
47
5.3.2 Children in care: the CYPAB placement databases

In this research the 73 databases provided by the CYPAB provided a much richer set of data,
though limited to children under a Care Order. As such, they include the new category of
unaccompanied minor asylum seekers.
Table 12 gives a breakdown of the in care population. Three points are sampled from the
research material so as to give some insight to the fluidity in the system. One of the categories is
further broken down, though no breakdown of placements was available in the Jan 2005
database, which only included names, genders and ages.
Table 12 Breakdown of 'in care' population, with special emphasis on boys
Children under a Care Order
Jan 2005
Dec 2010
May 2011
Traditional system Boys
70
110
111
Traditional system Girls
70
128
128
New Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seeker System
79
48
37
Total:
219
286
276
Traditional system Boys in Residential Care
52
51
Traditional system Boys in Foster Care
40
41
Traditional system Boys at home / other
19
19
110
111
Boys in the Traditional care system
Total:
The new Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seeker system consists of the residential facilities
dedicated to hosting up to 40 of these children (who will be referred to as UMAS). Initially kept in
various detention facilities, the dedicated residences are worlds apart from detention(Pace et
al. 2009: 20). The UMAS were not included in the FSWS Nov 2010 sample earlier, so the tables
below are similarly exclusive of UMAS to remain comparable.
48
5.3.3 Placement Authority

The legal route of entry of a child into placement is indicated in Table 13. This often determines
what can be done in order to work with a child and family.
Table 13 Placement Status (CICB & FSWS data)
Placement Status
In Residential Care
(CICB: 2000)
In Residential Care
(FSWS, Nov 2010)
Care Order
76
22
109
52
Court Order
25
13
Voluntary Placement
239
70
87
42
Snapshot Total
340
12
209
Children in care may have represented only 22% of the residential care population in 2000 but
are the majority of cases at the end of 2010. This is also true of the traditional residential care
sector, i.e. excluding UMAS as indicated in Figure 8.
Voluntary
Placement,
158
Care Order,
237
Court Order,
36
Figure 8 Legal route of entry of children in out-of-home care (FSWS, Nov 2010)
12
The CICB 2001 report indicates that it is using two snapshots of the system (taken in 2000) to provide this
data, hence the slight divergence from the figures quoted earlier for the out-of-home care population.
49
5.4 Children in Residential Care

Children in residential care are placed in a somewhat artificial care environment but closely
reflect the out-of-home care population of which they form part.
5.4.1 Numbers and Ages of all children in Residential Care

The age-profile of children in residential care has changed over the years; with a trend to overall
fewer numbers, but a greater proportion of older children in the system (Table 14).
Table 14 Age-groups of Children in Residential Care in 2000 and 2010 (CICB & FSWS data)
2000
Boys
Girls
Total
2010
Boys
Girls
Total
<1 yr
10
13
23
7%
<1 yr
0%
1-5
54
34
88
27%
1-5
19
20
39
19%
6-10
46
48
94
29%
6-10
31
31
62
30%
11-15
55
30
85
26%
11-15
45
33
78
37%
16+
25
33
10%
16+
20
29
14%
Totals
173
150
323
Totals
104
105
209
54%
46%
50%
50%
Comparing the snapshots of the population of children in residential care in 2000 and 2010 as
depicted in Table 14 (Figure 9) indicates changes in the number of residents and in the patterns
of use of the service, with decreasing use of the service by younger children and a sector now
dominated by children in their early teens, according to the FSWS 2010 statistics.
100
100
80
<1 yr
80
<1 yr
60
1-5
60
1-5
40
6-10
40
6-10
11-15
20
11-15
20
0
Boys
2000
Girls
2000
Total
2000
16+
Boys
2010
Girls
2010
Total
2010
(CICB: 2000)
16+
(FSWS 2010)
Figure 9 Number and Age distribution patterns in Residential Care for 2000 & 2010
50
A clearly changing age-pattern within these populations (Figure 10) brings with it a need for a
different response, since the challenges presented to carers by teenagers are naturally different
from those presented by toddlers and younger children.
Boys 2000
Boys 2010
Girls 2000
60
60
40
40
20
20
Girls 2010
0
<1 yr
1-5
6-10
11-15
16+
<1 yr
1-5
6-10 11-15 16+
Figure 10 Numbers in Residential Care 2000 2010
The decrease in numbers over ten years could be the result of many factors such as investment in
foster-care and re-dimensioning of provision, but clearly fewer children appear to be entering
residential care and the services for younger children are the ones where it shows most.
On the other hand, many young people could be ageing out of care in the next five or six years
(Figure 11). Clearly more services will be required for that age group as quite a number of them
may risk being practically unsupported unless services are in place for care-leavers to help them
tide over the crucial years 16-23. If they are to be helped integrate into society, such services
must include non-institutional residential and aftercare provision of some sort.
100
80
60
Total 2000
40
Total 2010
20
0
<1 yr
1-5
6-10
11-15
16+
Figure 11 Shift towards an older group of children in residential care from 2000 to 2010
51
5.4.2 Numbers and Ages of Children in care

Does the in care sample allow us to draw conclusions about a wider service user population?
Given their numbers and age distribution, they are likely to reliably represent the overall
traditional population of children in residential care (regardless of the route taken on entry):
Numbers suggest representability

Children in care constitute more than half of all the children in residential care, even before
taking into account the group of UMAS (Table 15).
Table 15 Percentage of children under a Care Order in cohort of children in residential care
Children in Residential Care 2010
Boys
Girls
Total
Just children in care
52
63
115
All children in residential care
104
105
209
Ratio of in care group to all children in res. care
50%
60%
55%
Figure 12 (boys) suggests that these children are not evenly distributed across the age spectrum.
Although the sample size is small, the break in the pattern that occurs for boys around the 15th
year threshold could reflect factors external to the children, the dynamics of which could be
reflected within the system of residential provision for boys itself. The age distribution for girls
appears to be more even:
Age Distribution - Boys in Res. Care
Age Distribution - Girls in Res. Care
10
10
2
0
0
0
10 12 14 16 18
10 12 14 16 18
Figure 12 Age distribution of children under a Care Order in Residential Care (Dec 2010)
52
Age-patterns suggestive of similarities

With regards to the trend of age-increases in the children who are under a Care Order in 2011
and live in residential care facilities, there is a practically identical pattern to the overall out-ofhome care scene in Malta. Their numbers are broken down by age categories and compared to
the data extracted from the data for December 2004 in Table 16.
Table 16 Boys in Residential Care under a Care Order (2004 and 2010)
Care
Orders
Boys
Girls
Total
Dec
2004
Care
Orders
Boys
Girls
Total
Dec
2010
<1 yr
0%
<1 yr
1%
1-5
14
13
27
19%
1-5
17
15%
6-10
30
29
59
42%
6-10
14
21
35
30%
11-15
21
24
45
32%
11-15
25
21
46
40%
16+
6%
16+
11
16
14%
Totals
70
70
140
Totals
52
63
115
50%
50%
45%
55%
The same trends are also confirmed in Figure 13 which closely resembles Figure 11:
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
RCOs 2004
RCOs 2010
Poly. (RCOs 2004)
Poly. (RCOs 2010)
<1 yr
1-5
6-10
11-15
16+
Figure 13 Trends and Proportions: residential in care cohort by age group (Dec 2004 & 2010)
53
5.5 Length of Time in Care

The data in the CYPAB databases do not permit the calculation of the length of time each child
spent in residential care, but the most recent lists record the date of issue of the Care Order.
Boys in Residential Care:

Months lived 'in care'
Girls in Residential Care:
Months lived 'in care'
216
216
192
192
168
168
144
144
120
120
96
96
72
72
48
48
24
24
0
0
1
11
21
31
41
51
11
21
31
41
Figure 14 86% of children in Residential Care were 'protected' by a Care Order for over a year
The children who are taken under the protection of the state tend to spend many years in care.
Some 86% of the 96 children in the snapshot data for Dec 2010 had spent more than one year in
care. Figure 14 shows the number of children on the x-axis and the number of months spent in
care on the y-axis. It suggests some children may be spending far too much of their young lives in
non-family based care settings: could this be verging on institutional abuse (Gil 1982) ?
5.6 Entering Residential Care: the chances of a long-term ticket

In January 2005 there were 219 active Care Orders, of which 70 were males within the Traditional
system of care. In December 2010, nearly six years later, there were 110 males in the same
system. Nearly two thirds of these were taken into care by the age of 5 (Table 17) with 52 of all
boys now in Residential Care (Table 18).
54
Table 17 Age category when the boys were taken into care (Dec 2010)
Age on issue of care order, i.e.:
Taken into care
No. of boys
0 5 years:
in infancy
69
6 11 years:
in middle childhood
33
as an older boy
12+ years:
Totals:
110
Most boys taken into care in infancy were found to be living in Foster care in Dec 2010, but this
became a remote possibility if the child was taken into care beyond age 5, while Residential Care
was practically the only option for children taken into care aged 12 and over (Table 18).
Table 18 Boys' placement associated with age they are taken into care (Dec 2010)
In Residential Care
In Foster Care
At Home / Other
In infancy
28
35
in middle childhood
20
as an older boy
Totals:
52
40
18
Taken into care
However, for 23 boys out of the 48 found living in residential care, who were taken into care
before their 12th birthday, residential care was found to have become a major feature of their
life, having spent between 4 and nearly 18 years in care (Table 19) by the end of 2010.
For boys taken into care aged 0 to 5, who had either remained in residential care since infancy or
else had returned to the residential care system by the time of the research, the data suggests
that their chances of remaining long-term in residential care were the most elevated (Table 19).
Table 19 Residential Care: an early start could mean a long-term reality (Dec 2010)
In Res. Care after this many years under CO:
03yrs
4-6yrs
7+ yrs
Totals
In infancy (0 5)
14
28
in middle childhood (6 11)
11
20
as an older boy (12+)
28
14
10
52
Boys taken into care
Totals:
55

This chapter sought to look at the children in the care system. Over the years the reasons for
which children have been taken into care or offered a care placement became or were seen to
become increasingly complex and multi-faceted. As patterns changed Maltese society gradually
developed fresh responses but statistical data suggested the presence of latency and inertia in
the system.
At this stage the findings flag the possibility of the services simply reacting to pressures rather
than developing pro-actively to bring about change in more enlightened and effective directions.
By providing an idea of the trends in the system we can get a good indication of where the
system was coming from and, maybe also, where it might be heading. The next chapter will
tackle the task of painting a comprehensive picture of the network of residential facilities that the
children inhabit and gleaning some indication regarding the paths and connections between the
services.
56
Chapter 6. Where are the Children?

The characteristics of the children in the Maltese Residential Care System are linked with the
services that cater for them. Chapter 3 detailed the development of residential facilities where
children, sometimes in state care, may be found. This chapter explores the range and nature of
these facilities, comparing their footprint as perceived in Maltese official publications with the
reality discovered on the ground. The aim is to compile a graphical depiction of the system and
present it in the form of a map of the Maltese Residential Care System. The research suggests
that this System has moved on and that the children it caters for today are not the same kind of
child of ten or twenty years ago. Moreover, some children live within the System yet seem to be
invisible to the authorities.
6.1 Changes in Residential Facilities admitting children from 2000 to 2011

According to an official report published online by the Ministry for Social Policy (The Children in Care
Benefit, March 2001) which was based on data available in October 2000, sixteen residential care
services existed in the Maltese islands (Table 20): fourteen childrens homes, one for people with a
disability and one for young homeless women.
Table 20 Sixteen residential care services were reported to exist in 2000 (CICB)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Angela House
Dar tal-Providenza (Disability)
Fatima House (Girls Hostel)
Fra Diegu
Holy Family
St. Jeanne Antide
Jesus of Nazareth Home, Zejtun
Lourdes Home
Piccola Casa di San Guseppe
Programm Fejda
St. Joseph Home, Hamrun
St. Joseph Home, Zabbar
St. Patrick's
St. Rita Home
St. Theresa Home
Ursuline Creche
Ten years later, less children appear to be living in residential care but the number of facilities
where looked-after children were being accommodated have increased (Table 21). However,
official data still indicates a very small number of residential facilities accommodating children,
the latest figure given being 17 (Parliamentary Questions 2010). Even the National Statistics
57
Office (NSO) falls short of attempting to identify childrens residential services, preferring to
indicate solely the data provided by a Church agency, which in some places is clearly incorrect.
Nothing indicates that the NSO is aware that children under a Care Order are being placed in a
wider variety of facilities today (Govt of Malta 2010).
Table 21 Facilities increased while Residential Placements decreased (2000, 2010)

CICB Report
(October 2000 data)
All childrens residential care providers

(FSWS data 2010)
Change
over 10 yrs
No. of Facilities:
16
25
+9
Resident Males:
173
104
- 40%
Resident Females:
150
105
- 30%
Total:
323
209
- 35%
Additionally, a picture was presented that was rather misleading under certain aspects:
Official data indicates a 35% decrease in the number of minors in residential care in 10 years.
However the dataset utilised (FSWS 2010) does not include most UMAS who live in the two
main Homes within the UMAS system.
Working under the impression that at the moment [November 2010] there are 17 facilities
where children under Care Order can be accommodated (Parliamentary Questions 2010)
perpetuates the impression that children in care are only to be found in Childrens Homes.
Presenting data that has been over-simplified to such an extent has two implications:
a) It signals the implicit acceptance of the anomalous situation of UMAS (Eurochild 2010:
133); and
b) It ignores the reality that between 10 and 15% of these children are likely to be found in
facilities which, rather than being homes, are mental health institutions, adult
homeless shelters, addiction-related drug rehabilitation services, and shelters for victims
of domestic violence, among others.
The reality is that the reasons for which children made use of these other facilities included lack
of space in mainstream centres or a refusal to accommodate them:
The boys always stay longer [here] because there are not enough placements
in the boys homes (Amanda*)
58
Between 2006 and 2009, 35 minors have been refused placements mainly
due to their difficult uncontrollable behaviour, disability, and the age limit:
children aged 9 to 11 were considered too old for childrens homes caring for
young children and too young for others hosting adolescents. (FSWS 2011)
In reality, placements extracted from three databases yielded 32 facilities that accommodated
children in care in the six month span November 2010 May 2011 (Table 22). Appendix 1
provides a more detailed view.
Table 22 Children 'in care' were accommodated in 32 facilities in a 6-month period

FSWS placement data
November 2010
Childrens
Home
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
Programm Fejda
St. Jeanne Antide
St. Joseph (Hamrun)
St. Joseph (Zabbar)
St. Patrick's
St. Rita
St. Theresa
Ursuline Creche
Dar Gilji Bojod
Hostel
Dar Frate Jacoba

Fatima House
CYPAB placement data

December 2010
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
Programm Fejda
St Jeanne Antide
St Josephs (Hamrun)
St Josephs (Zabbar)
St Patrick's Home
St Rita Home
St Therese Home
Ursuline Creche
Dar Gilji Bojod
CYPAB placement data

May 2011 (latest data)
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
Programm Fejda
St Jeanne Antide
St Josephs (Hamrun)
St Josephs (Zabbar)
St Patrick's Home
St Rita Home
St Therese Home
Ursuline Creche
Dar Frate Jacoba
Fatima House
Osanna Pia
Homeless
Shelter
Mental
Health
Dar Leopoldo
Dar Teresa Spinelli
YMCA Minors
KIDs
Mt Carmel Hosp Adult Wards
Young Peoples Unit
YMCA Minors
KIDs
KIDs
Mt Carmel Hosp Adult Wards
Young Peoples Unit
Villa Chelsea
DV Shelter
Ghabex
Addiction
Dar il-Vittorja
Disability
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar Nazareth
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar Nazareth
Refugees
Dar il-Qawsalla
Dar il-Qawsalla
Dar il-Liedna
Dar is-Sliem
Dar il-Liedna
Dar is-Sliem
59
Further analysis of the 74 primary databases used for the study, an examination of official
documentation, plus a wider survey undertaken as part of this research, yielded further facilities
which hosted children in care in the last few years. As a result, in addition to the eight
categories identified above, four additional categories were indicated as possible kinds of places
where children live for longer or shorter periods and are not in the overnight care of their
parents (United Nations 2010): Hospital (medical) wards, Detention facilities, Religious
communities and Boarding schools. These were added to the existing eight categories already
extracted (Table 23).
Table 23 Categories of Facilities accommodating children (official records vs research data)
Children in Care
CPT: Places of
Benefit doc (CICB) Deprivation of Liberty
Research:
All Placement Databases
Research:
Survey List
Childrens Home
Childrens Home
Hostel
Hostel
Hostel
Disability
Disability
Disability
Homeless Shelter
Homeless Shelter
Mental Health
Mental Health
DV Shelter
DV Shelter
Addiction
Addiction
Refugees
Refugees
Childrens Home
Childrens Home
Homeless Shelter
Detention facilities
Detention Facilities
Hospital Wards
Religious Communities
Boarding Schools
6.2 Categorising Residential Provision

These types of institution differ significantly, but anyone not familiar with the practice context
might well enquire as to what the specific characteristics of these categories of provision are:
Childrens Homes
Table 22 appears to indicate that the bulk of mainstream provision consists of facilities the
research categorised as Childrens Homes. They are mostly institutional buildings (Eurochild
2010), usually forming part of a convent and cater for between 6 and 50 children in groups of 6 to
60
13 (survey data). Their intake consists of referrals from outside the system or else from other
residential services. Those for younger children are mixed gender (FSWS Nov 2010).
Hostels
Hostels admit older adolescents and young adults in a less supervised group living situation. Their
intake is frequently from the group of care-leavers in mainstream settings as well as vulnerable
youth within the community, and UMAS. In recent months Hostels have been adapting to a
younger generation, generally in an ad hoc manner:
... We create a positive environment where they can discover their skills and
talents to live independently... a skeleton staff of three and 12 young people.
... In recent years there was a surge in young people under 18 and we felt the
need to respond. (Mike*)
Homeless Shelters
Geared for adults with serious social and personal problems, these are not well suited for
adolescents yet they absorb the overflow from the care system when other solutions are not
available.
Mental Health Facilities

These address children with deep seated problems whose rather challenging behaviour requires
a greater degree of therapeutic input and containment. There is one mixed-gender facility for
each age group with little overlap, except for the state psychiatric hospital, which, though not a
preferred placement, often serves as the facility of last resort.
Domestic Violence Shelters and Addiction Services

Both kinds of facilities offer residential programmes for very specific client groups, and yet have
admitted adolescents aged 14 17 (CYPAB 2009-2011 databases), not necessarily because they
fall squarely in their service categories (Johnston, W. 2011; Justice Scicluna 2011).
Disability Services
These offer from short-term respite to long-term care, sometimes for a small fee. Some address
the needs of mentally challenged individuals rather than just physical handicap, and may even
cater primarily for an elderly client group, rather than children.
61
Refugee Services
Two dedicated childrens facilities only admit UMAS, with their sources for admission being the
general reception facilities for irregular immigrants or police detention centres. Some UMAS are
also admitted to childrens Homes and Hostels when their claim is processed. In 2008 only 28, or
7% of 400 claimants were accepted as being UMAS (Pace et al. 2009).
Religious Communities
Religious Orders have been known to provide accommodation to teenagers but lately this
appears to have become rare and only for a matter of weeks rather than months and years.
Hospitals
While State hospitals are known to face issues with older patients who end up as social cases,
even because Maltese citizens receive free medical care, children in Malta sometimes stay in
hospital for the better part of a year when medical grounds warrant their continued stay.
However, nowadays, many children of mothers with fertility issues or addiction problems also
require acute hospital treatment soon after birth.
Boarding Schools
Being a possibility only for those who can afford them, boarding schools carry none of the stigma
associated with out-of-home care (White 2008) but could be considered an alternative, if
expensive service, for children from well-off families, possibly providing these with an alternative
to the traditional care system.
Detention facilities
Youths Detention facilities have attracted attention recently (Grima 2009; OCfC 2011), mainly
because provision for girls is still ad hoc, while authorities claim that economies of scale make it
mandatory for provision to be shared between boys and adults sometimes more than ten years
their elder. 45 children required 65 admissions to the Correctional Facility during the period of
this research and Table 24 details their ages and genders (Parliamentary Questions 2011). One
organisation offers a time-limited accommodation service specifically for ex-prisoners and does
not exclude accommodating minor ex-prisoners, given the right circumstances.
62
Table 24 Children in the Detention Facility at Corradino
Year
Age
2005
15
17
17
15
16
17
13
14
15
16
17
15
16
17
16
17
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Girls
Boys
1
5
8
1
1
6
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
6
4
2
5
3
10
6.3 State classification of residential facilities

The only evidence encountered in the research which portrays an attempt at an explicit
classification of residential facilities in Malta, including facilities for children, was an official
document first posted on a Council of Europe website in February 2011. This was done in the
context of a reply to the report published by the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) pursuant to its visit in Malta
during May 2008, and was received by the CPT in July 2009.
In view of its uniqueness, an analysis of Annex 1 to the Report (Govt of Malta 2008) is reproduced
in Appendix 3. However this Updated list of all places of deprivation of liberty only identifies 14
facilities classified as a residential home for children under a Care Order, court order or in
voluntary care. The list is rather incomplete as it does not even acknowledge the existence of
Dar is-Sliem and Dar il-Liedna, where practically all the UMAS now live, despite all UMAS being
children under a Care Order.
63
6.4 The Organisation of the Residential Care System

Geographic Distribution
All mainstream facilities and most of the specialist services are located in the central and south
parts of the island, which is more heavily populated. No mainstream childrens facilities at all
serve the island of Gozo, the latest having closed down in 2008 (Busuttil 2008).
Type of services offered

None of the mainstream providers offer a service dedicated to emergency reception; assessment;
short-term care or respite services; none offer secure accommodation except MCH. Some offer
therapy while nearly all offer long-term care by default.
What is included in the CYPAB and FSWS datasets

Figure 15 points out how differences between the CYPAB dataset (in care population: red
ellipse) and the FSWS dataset (looked-after children: red circle) can be visually indicated:
Foster Care
Non-mainstream Residential Settings
Mainstream Residential Care
FSWS dataset
CYPAB dataset
Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seeker system
Figure 15 CYPAB and FSWS datasets encompass different populations
64
Admission and Discharge: age thresholds

While practically all services accept entries from the wider community, entry points into the care
system depend on childrens age, gender, provenance and nature of problem (Table 25). Figure
18 provides a graphical depiction of Maltese Care Provision.
Table 25 Age Admission and Discharge thresholds
Provenance
Gender
Age
Problem
Facility
Infancy
Under 5
Medical / Detox
Social
Traditional
Boys
Girls
Boys
Under 10
Under 13
9 18
Social
Social
Social
Traditional
Girls
12 17
Boys
16 +
Social /
Behavioural
Social
UMAS
UMAS
-
Girls
16 +
13 +
13 +
5 10
8 17
Social
Social
Social
Mental Health
Mental Health
Traditional
Traditional
17+
-
Mental Health
Disability
General Hospitals
Ejjew Ghandi Childrens Homes
(but mostly Ursuline Crche)
St. Patricks
St Josephs (Hamrun)
Don Bosco House
Fejda
Jeanne Antide
Dar Osanna Pia (2011)
Frate Jacoba (2010)
Fatima House (2010)
Dar is-Sliem
Dar il-Liedna
KIDs
YPU: Young Peoples Unit (MCH)
Adult Psychiatric Wards (MCH)
Villa Chelsea
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar l-Arka
Dar Nazaret
Dar il-Kaptan
A complete breakdown of the facilities accommodating children under a Care Order, and more
generally children without parental care, resulting from the research is included in Appendix 6.
65
6.5 Placement Patterns in the Residential Care System

Emergency Placements and Assessments
The point of entry into the system of children in long-term care was often marked by a crisis of
some sort. This was seen as opening the way for state intervention and secured a placement.
However, if a needs assessment of some sort takes place, experienced professionals saw little
evidence of it:
The system as it is in Malta, the only places that do assessments are Treetops*
and Monkeyspace*... as for the rest, no proper assessment is done. Children
are admitted on a crisis basis... normally: emergencies, weekends, 5-year olds
roaming the streets... (Pauline*)
Placement moves in childhood and adolescence

Adolescents and very disruptive children had experienced many moves, destabilising them further:
Taken into care at age 9, Ronald experienced 8 placements. His one foster placement broke
down, the rest were planned moves. At 17 he was locked up in an institution for running
away to be with friends once too often:
He tells me Im tired, going from one place to the other, never being able to
have a home of my own. [...] Like, how long will he keep going from one
home to another, to another, to another, to another...? [...] He had said to
me: you cannot understand me, because you, when you leave from here, you
have somewhere to go, your home. I havent. Here it is like they let me borrow
this place for one year because they had nowhere else to dump me...
(Jeanine*)
Lately more difficult children are being placed in mainstream childrens Homes, though
most facilities find it hard to cope with more than one or two children with very challenging
behaviour in each group:
We had four [kids] that have one-to-one high support carers [i.e. individual
carers] in the same group... their behaviour is rather [unpredictable] ... and
Anton* and Rodianne* in particular are... ah... explosive...!
Anton* came here when he was 3 ... right on his birthday... He was so much of
a handful that they couldnt cope with him there... so they brought him here.
(Pauline*)
66
... at any time he could have a tantrum... a huge one for a toddler... [...]
especially if they are in residential care... the problem appears to happen much
less when the same children are outside the residential setting... (Maria*)
Early signs of boys sexual awakening or acting up can hasten a termination of placement in
facilities for younger children:
I find the boys' sexual behaviour thing rather an excuse instead of saying that
they are a handful in certain cases more than girls. [] Many times the Homes
tend to be patient with girls but with boys they are much less. (Amanda*)
6.6 End of the line: Children in the states psychiatric facilities

CYPAB placement data was scarce before mid-2008 but yet, it seemed curious that out of 18,000
entries the CYPAB database did not record a single case of children living in the one institution
that had consistently been at the receiving end of the harshest criticism of state placement of
children in Malta (Bonello et al. 2006; Massa 2009; OCfC 2006). Mount Carmel Hospital (MCH) is
made up of various wards which have varying potential for impact on the youngsters admitted to
them. This may depend on the mix of the group, the environment in the ward and the
supervisory regime in place.
None of the monthly databases issued by the CYPAB indicated any placement in any
psychiatric facility of any description between January 2005 and December 2010;
The FSWS snapshot indicated that three children (two of whom were in care) were
placed in the state psychiatric facility (MCH) in Nov 2010;
Children as young as five have been admitted to the state psychiatric facility (Malta.
House of Representatives 2006: 5);
A document appearing to originate from the Commissioner for Childrens Office claims
that 21 children were living in this institution in August 2010, the majority of which in
adult wards (OCfC 2010b)13;
In the group of 46 boys in long-term care that was followed more closely, it transpired
that twelve had spent time at MCH (Interviews: George*, Jeanine*, Tim*, Ben*,
Charmaine*).
13
Doubts have been raised by the Commissioner for Children as to the accuracy of her figures in this case.
67
6.7 The Invisible Children within the Care System

On occasion, children appeared to be admitted irregularly in the Homes. Very young UMAS are
infrequently admitted to these facilities by the state, although most UMAS are aged over 14 and
remain within the UMAS system (CYPAB databases).
However the Homes are taking the spill-over from another category of minors classified as
vulnerable: the children of asylum seekers (OCfC 2010b), of which there are hundreds.
One of the Homes had an extraordinary amount of children staying with them for 5 or 6
nights a week. These children had been accepted on private arrangements rather than
through the normal channels:
... staff are dead tired at Lilliput*. They have over 50 kids, practically all
refugees... only 9 came through the social workers, and the others... the
Homes Director was pressured into accepting them ... 41, in residence yes...
no, not under a Care Order, and without any financial support... The Sisters
raise them on providence... there was a queue of six, seven, eight... they came
there, threatening the Sister they would leave the kids behind the door...
because they needed to go find work... (Pauline*)
Private arrangements are in dissonance with the formality that placements in residential care are
required to assume, for everyones safety. Yet the research uncovered two more cases of
placements in residential care that had gone undetected:
a) A disabled teenager was attending school while living in Graceland* - which is a home for
about 140 old people (Cutajar 2011). Once again, arrangements were entered into privately;
b) A 13-year-old boy was privately accommodated for three weeks in Treetops* apparently
without involving social services (Vella 2011) in what could have been a rather inappropriate
placement as he spent his days in residence with some rather disturbed adolescents who
were in care, yet, some of which he knew from school.
68
6.8 Invisibility by Exclusion from the Care System?

The cases of children on the periphery of the Residential Care System deserve a passing mention
because of their proximity to the system.
a) Some children under a Care Order were reunited with their families because it was good for
them, while others were sent home because the system was unable to cope with them,
contain them or even handle their behaviour (Figure 16):
...he is living with his mother and they have some difficulties but shes coping with
him with the support she is receiving. (Tim* re NS)
... this boy is one of those that unfortunately had to be sent back home... [violence
against care staff, parent uncooperative, little support and no alternative placement
available] (Pauline* re ND)
...his behaviour escalated... he had been here way too long... the placement broke
down... [violence] ...were still in contact, when he wants something he gives me a
call... (George* re NM)
Figure 16 Hovering on the Edges of Care
69
b) Some other children were in care (abroad) and known to the authorities, but in the absence
of a service with a monitoring function they were unlikely to have received a service in Malta:
These are children in care, but under the authority of another jurisdiction;
They are brought to Malta by NGOs and hosted by Maltese families;
Brought over for a fortnights holiday, some, in reality, are reputed to have spent even
five or more years in Malta;
They are sourced in various countries: from the ex-Soviet republics, Africa and Asia;
The scale of the operation and the risks involved makes this fact noteworthy:
One of these NGOs alone claims to have brought in excess of 700 children from
Russian Orphanages to Malta over ten years (ICS 2010);
At least one of them has died locally, in unclear circumstances;
This research can only flag these circumstances and one cannot but wonder if there
are any child protection issues to be raised in cases like these. Suffice it to say that
photographic data publicly available certainly gives cause for concern.
6.9 One System or Three?

a) Patterns within the Maltese system suggest an interwoven reality made up of sub-systems
serving children of different age groups, genders and provenance (Figure 17):
Teenaged UMAS are served by dedicated units and a different social work agency (AWAS:
Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers) (FSWS 2011).
Boys and girls in residential care avail of different mainstream facilities from age 9
onwards. This brings about a forced separation of siblings at a tender age, simply because
the only facilities which break with the existing pattern are therapeutic facilities and
disability services. Some staff feel strongly about this:
We shouldnt say that boys must move by the age of 9 due to them
growing up and manifesting sexual behaviour. That is a huge
generalisation... and I find it discriminatory. (Amanda*)
70
b) Tensions become evident when systems coexist within the same facility:
Until recently Eaglenest* catered for both the Traditional and UMAS systems. When a
vacancy arose it was filled by an UMAS since resources only allowed for the less stringent
support and supervision requirements of UMAS:
We could not take responsibility for local minors [...] in terms of

education, protection, finances... We could not give them these as we
were not geared for minors [but for relatively independent adults]...
(Mike*)
A boy and his twin sister were resident at Rupertsville*. As they were approaching their
9th birthday a staff member expressed worries as to their possible impending separation.
Children, siblings, twins! Separated at 9 Separated at 9! Separated!

Siblings! Do you understand? Because at 9 we cannot keep them any
longer there because of gender, they say. [...] ... And then well send
him to a psychologist to fix him yeah sure it wont work. (Maria*)
c) Interview and survey data indicated that routes into the care systems are different. In a
sector that is still highly unregulated, the age at exit appeared to depend on what the
residential services were willing to offer (Figure 17) and able to cope with, at the time
(Chris*, Daniel*, George*, Jeanine*, Pauline*).
Boys:
0
16
+========================================================+
Girls:
0
18
+=======================================================================+
14
18
+====================+
UMAS:
Figure 17 Predominant age ranges of children in residential care facilities in the sub-systems
71
d) Sub-systems run in parallel though in some cases overlap (Table 26).
Table 26 Dedicated Facilities and Overlapping Services
Predominant Ages in
Residential Care
Overlapping
Mainstream Facilities
0 to 16
Creche
Ejjew Ghandi
(till age 9)
Girls
0 to 17
Creche
Ejjew Ghandi
(no age limit)
UMAS
15 to 17
Creche
Boys
Osanna
Osanna
Dedicated
Mainstream
Facilities
St Patricks
St Josephs
Don Bosco
Fejda
Jeanne Antide
Fatima
Fieldwork
Agency
Liedna
Sliem
AWAS
LAC
LAC
6.10 The Maltese Residential Child Care System in graphical depiction

The aim of this chapter was to map the landscape of care in Malta. Tables and statistical data are
useful for such an exercise however the data at hand allows us to draw a graphical depiction of
the current residential child care system and present it in a form which is more direct. Thus
Figure 18 describes the Maltese Residential Care System in the form of a chart for ease of
reference.
The research clearly indicates that while some services appear to be established around certain
common cores, the overall field of residential care has become more complex over time. Such
changes should in theory render the local reality more responsive to childrens needs. However
this would only be ensured provided that there is planning and coordination taking place. As it is,
a number of arrangements in the past appear to have taken place on an ad hoc basis because
there is no master-plan for childrens residential services as yet in Malta. The following diagram
indicates the services available.
72
GIRLS entry points

into the System
Age line:
BOYS entry points

into the System
UMAS
Dar ilKaptan
03
Crche
Disability Services (Residential)
Dar
Nazaret
Id-Dar
talProvidenza
- network
of seven
residential
facilities
run by
female
Religious
Orders
Ejjew
Ghandi
DV
Shelters
10
16
U
M
AS
Don Bosco House

St. Patricks
Osanna Pia
St. Josephs (Sta Venera)
Frate Jacoba
Detention
Facilities
Dar il-Liedna
Dar is-Sliem
aged 9 18
Males
Services for
Villa Chelsea
Females
Adolescent
Services for
18
Fatima House
Fejda /
Jeanne Antide
complex
Homeless
Shelters
Adult Psychiatric Units

Y.P.U.
Addiction
Facilities
KIDs Therapeutic Unit
Hospital
Wards
Fig. 18
Maltese Residential Care Provision for Children

February 2011
6.11 A more realistic picture of the out-of-home care scene in Malta (late 2010)
If one were to include UMAS and the previously undocumented children living in residential care
that we now know of, a more realistic picture of the care situation emerges (Figure 19). Still,
one has to keep in mind that the data below is based on the FSWS Nov 2010 dataset as
integrated with CYPAB Dec 2010. Thus some slight inflation could be present due to possible
overlapping, yet the overall picture is still rather interesting. Numbers of service-users are taken
from Appendix 6.
Mainstream Homes,
Hostels and
Homeless Shelters
Specialist
Care Provision
186 (+42)
22 (+1)
Residential Care
257 (+43)
Formal Out-ofHome Care

Arrangements
485
(+43 invisible)
Supervised
Independent Living
Unaccompanied
Minors
48
Stranger Foster
Care
116
228
Kinship Care
60
Living with own

Family
37
Other
15
Family-based Care
Figure 19 Children in out-of-home care situation in Malta: late 2010 (best estimate)

This chapter detailed the process of finding where the children said to be in residential care are
living and, in the process, some interesting features of the Maltese residential care system came
out into the open. As society and its systems become more complex the need for coherence and
synergy between component parts increases. Is it too much to hope that in Malta this would
equally apply to the system catering for the needs of children without parental care as well?
The next chapter will enable the research to gain some insight into how this system is working.
74
Chapter 7. The Care System through the lens of Policy, Ideals and Reality
Relatively recent events brought about the potential for pivotal changes in the Maltese
residential child care sector. The situations were pointed out in official publications and thus
these issues may be said to reflect and indicate key aspects needing attention within the Maltese
care system for children. Practice reports identify the situation on the ground and contribute to
painting a fuller picture of how the care system is working, as well as the lacunae that exist.
Recurring themes in official reports spanning the years 2004 to 2011 will be noted through
documentary analysis, and the common areas of concern will be considered in relation to two
practice documents: the first being an ideal scenario as expressed by the external review of the
Looked-After Children service (Aldgate et al. 2008) and the second being the latest FSWS
Operations Report (FSWS 2011) that documents the fragility of real-world practice. These themes
will also be briefly reflected upon from the perspective of the professionals working closely with
the children living in the residential care system.
7.1 Challenging the status quo

Traditionally, the Maltese residential-child care system was run by the Church and enjoyed great
trust and support from people, a situation that created conditions allowing residential child care
to be carried on by voluntary agencies as an ad hoc charitable or philanthropic service in the
context of an accommodating stance from the states end, practically even today.
For decades little changed in the Maltese 'system' of residential care provision for children
(Muscat Azzopardi 2006): as typically happens, the paradigm within which the care system
existed displayed a certain measure of stability. Policy paradigms in fact only change periodically
because people operate on the basis of shared assumptions about how the world functions and
usually tend to hold on to them (Hudson & Lowe 2009: 57). From time to time, however, the
common frameworks for understanding the world break down as unexplained events and new
discoveries challenge existing notions, a factor relevant even to this sector (Gonzi 2003).14 In such
14
During a seminar organised by Appogg in Sept 2003, the Prime Minister Dr Gonzi had this to say in his
opening address: Times are changing fast Today most of the children that reside in childrens Homes are
children who have experienced some kind of trauma or have a psychological or physical condition. This
effectively means that the way we care for these children is changing and needs to change even further.
75
situations, fresh ideas take centre stage as a new framework for understanding the world
emerges. The philosopher Thomas Kuhn said that a paradigm shift happens when this occurs
(Kuhn 1970). For a shift to occur within the Maltese 'system' of care the existing paradigm needs
to be challenged and go into crisis. Unless this becomes evident in the discussions around policy,
change will be unlikely to happen, as a British political scientist suggests:
If the paradigm aint broke', radical ideational suggestions to fix it, existing
in the form of circulating ideas and other forms of political discourse, will not
find practical expression within the purview of the state. Only when a status
quo is considered broke, and economic needs and political demands require
change, can ideas be advanced to dramatically fix it. (Heffernan 2002: 750).
As it happened, the ideals that shaped policy in the Maltese residential child care system were
dealt a severe blow by the very public allegations of sexual abuse in a church-run institution in
2003. As a result, a new paradigm started to slowly establish itself in this field, with the notion of
blind trust starting to give way to a request for competence, as the basis on which the out-ofhome care system for children needed to be run and developed.15
7.2 Painting a picture of the Maltese Care System through official publications
Government policy on Maltese residential care provision for children is presently made, enforced
or evaluated by four statutory bodies. The official Reports they produced since 2004 reflect their
angle on the care system as well as their contribution to its gradual development (Table 27).
Table 27 Official Reports reflecting aspects of the Care System in Maltese Policy 2004 2011.
Year
Authority
Report
2004
Department for Social Welfare Standards
Zammit Report
2008
Children and Young Persons Advisory Board
Annual Report 2007
2009
Annual Report 2008
2009
Ministry for Social Policy
2010
Sustainable Integration and Operation of

Government / Church Placements
Annual Report 2009
2010
Commissioner for Children
Inquiry on Care Orders
2011
Commissioner for Children
Inquiry on Minors in Conflict with the Law
15
The Working Group on Residential and Foster Care was appointed in 2004 following recommendations
put forward in a report drawn up by Carmen Zammit, then Director for the Department of Family Welfare.
The mandate of the working group was to formulate a Consultation Document with Model Policies and
Procedures for Out-of-Home Child Care, both in childrens residential homes as well as in foster care. The
Working Group consisted of representatives from the main entities operating in the sector (DSWS 2009a).
76
7.3 Recent Documents Influencing Official Policy
The first document under analysis was produced by what is now the Department for Social
Welfare Standards (DSWS) in response to allegations of sexual abuse in St Josephs Home in
Santa Venera. Produced in 2004, the report was meant for internal circulation only. A quick
glance at online local news reports up till the time the allegations surfaced in 2003 indicates
that abuse was a term people usually associated with the drug scene, and according to
interviews carried in the media, people in Malta did not believe that sexual abuse could take
place in religious institutions (Pisani 2003). The Zammit Report (Ministry for Social Policy
2004) acknowledged lacunae in the Maltese residential care system and outlined the
Governments response to the allegations, even though none of these had yet been
conclusively proven in a court of law (Grech 2011). Its recommendations were shared with a
selection of professionals and representatives of service providers drafted onto a Working
Group to produce sample policies and procedures for residential and foster care services.
Other initiatives followed with regard to National Standards of practice (DSWS 2009b).
The Children and Young Persons Advisory Board is responsible for reviewing the cases of all
children in care every six months. It routinely compiles an internal Annual Report passing on
to the Ministry responsible for social policy its recommendations based on the major issues
affecting many children for whom the state had become responsible (CYPAB 2008, 2009,
2010). Their latest Reports, for the period 2007 2009, will be taken into consideration. The
2010 Annual Report was still not released by May 2011 and thus could not be included here.
In 2009 the Ministry for Social Policy commissioned the drawing up of a report entitled
Sustainable Integration and Operation of Government/Church Placements (Muscat
Azzopardi et al. 2009). Somewhat technical and intended for a specific high-level audience,
the document was never placed in the public domain. It outlined principles and suggestions
for sweeping reforms of the residential care 'system' in Malta.
The Commissioner for Children being the statutory authority charged with safeguarding
childrens rights, held two Inquiries which for the first time challenged the states policies
regarding residential care provision for minors. In both cases the recommendations were
published while the actual report was withheld. The first Inquiry concerned Minors under a
Care Order (OCfC 2010a) and was initiated after a 9-year-old in need of protection was
placed under a Care Order but then turned away by the services and sent back home since no
77
residential placement was available for the child. The second Inquiry challenged the states
lack of separate facilities for detaining young people in custody (OCfC 2011) a point taken up
time and again by the Courts (Johnston, W. 2011).
7.4 Themes Emerging from Policy Reports

With six reports being published in the last four years, and four of them as recent as in the last
twenty-four months, the themes highlighted reflect ongoing situations:
a) The system provides support but weighs heavily on both children and staff
All four statutory bodies expressed concern about issues surrounding timely support for young
people in the services; and for the training and supervision, support, retention and working
conditions of the staff involved.
b) The significance of the family for looked-after children in residential care

A similar level of attention was devoted to widening the focus of professional intervention with
emphasis being placed on the need to work with families rather than simply providing care for
the children; and on the maintenance of the childrens links with a local community of reference
in order to assist their reintegration.
c) To meet the present needs, the care system requires reorganisation and resources
In the recent reports a significant preoccupation seemed to hinge on the theme of reorganisation
of the services; planning according to the current client groups range of needs; and a
differentiation of existing facilities, or the creation of new ones with an emphasis on care being
provided in smaller, domestic-scale, Homes rather than huge buildings and convents. There was
an acute sense of the struggle that existing services were going through in order to function, with
difficulties being registered with funding, staff ratios and overloading. Equal attention was
devoted to strengthening and developing foster family care, and to emphasise that very young
children should by default be placed in foster families.
78
d) Noticeable gaps in service provision

The recent reports gave a lot of attention to the gaps in the system, mainly identifying these
with the lack of a dedicated facility that provided an emergency reception service; the need for a
thorough assessment of cases prior to long-term admission; appropriate facilities for adolescents;
and a lamentable non-observance of the principles of maintaining a continuity of care and a
spectrum of services.
e) An appeal to the state to meet its responsibilities towards children in the care system
Frequently mentioned were: a request to revisit the existing legal framework along with the need
to introduce oversight in the system by way of monitoring and inspection mechanisms, as well as
the implementation of the National Standards in the residential care sector and the respective
practice guidelines; renewed attention to the services associated with the forced deprivation of
childrens liberty (mental health and justice services); the organisation of data on children in care;
as well as the importance of local research to better inform policy and practice.
7.5 The Looked-After Children Review and the FSWS Operations Report
In 2008, an external review of the Maltese Looked-after Children services was commissioned so
that directions could be embraced in terms of improving practice (Aldgate et al. 2008). The
situation of social work services at the interface with residential child care provision is described
in the Foundation for Social Welfare Services Operations Review. 2007-2009 report, published
lately (FSWS 2011).
Table 28 Recent Practice Reports
Year
Organisation
Report
2008
Foundation for Social Welfare Services
Looked After Children Review
2011
Foundation for Social Welfare Services
Operations Report 2007-2009
Both practice reports (Table 28) painted a similar picture of the system, yet some differences in
priorities were encountered. While generally agreeing on all the major points raised by current
policy concerns, a comparison shows the LAC Review of 2008 appearing to be less aware of the
problems that were being caused in the system by the gaps in the placements, limiting itself to
pointing out the need for therapeutic intervention and more appropriate attention to the
79
medical care needs of adolescent girls. However, it is possible that certain problems increased
after the LAC Review was undertaken, which would explain why some issues quickly became
priorities over time and were flagged as such by the more recent policy reports.
The Foundation is on its own in apparently being satisfied with the level of assessment that is
taking place before placing children in care and with the situation regarding emergency
placements, while everybody else seems to be a bit concerned on these points. In reality the
FSWS report, though published in 2011 reflected the situation prevailing between 2007 and
2009. Once again the Reports dating probably suffices to explain some divergences, such as
regarding the issue of emergency placements, since even political debates have brought up this
point in recent months (Johnston, W. 2011). Neither are the points about having smaller Units or
the need for Standards and inspection mechanisms pointed out by the Foundation. One can only
presume that having closed down its only residential structure for adolescents, euphemistically
named Formula 1, Appogg no longer carried direct responsibility for residential provision for
children and so was only indirectly concerned with the issues faced by the residential care
providers on whom it depends heavily for services. On the other hand Appogg vividly flagged the
difficulties encountered by its Child Protection Services unit when placements were unavailable
or else broke down with no viable alternative on the horizon. Attention to childrens rights, such
as listening to them and engendering their participation in decision-making, was not given much
priority in these two Reports either.
Situated on the front line of direct practice, the Foundation painted a picture which showed great
awareness of the fragility of the traditional residential services and of the discrimination that
occurs on the basis of a childs legal status: the Looked After Children Review pointed out that
children in care were being favoured more than those on voluntary placement, though the latter
presented similar needs (Aldgate et al. 2008).
The sensitivity shown to the practices of unnecessarily separating siblings; to the moving of
children between facilities instead of providing continuity in the same home; and to a need to
review arrangements at the Crche, was definitely more pronounced in the Foundations reports
than in those drawn up by the policymakers. Is it a case of the latter being slow to ruffle the
feathers of a service provider on whose services the state depends heavily and for which there
are still no real alternatives to date? Maybe. Yet, concerns about the situation of irregular
placements within one particular facility as well as in the sphere of informal care were also
flagged by both reports, this being the only instance when the existence of certain irregular
placements is even acknowledged.
80
Finally, only the Looked-after Children Review report sees fit to suggest the benefits of early
intervention and support measures as a way of preventing unnecessary recourse to residential
options later on while, at the other end of the spectrum, aftercare appears to be an issue that all
are concerned about. The LAC Review also makes some strong points with regard to the situation
of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, who, once in Malta are also covered by a Care Order
and so become children of the state, but remain mainly outside the looked-after children
system and are catered for separately by the asylum-seeker services (Aldgate et al. 2008).
7.6 Between Ideals and Reality: the Professionals views

The four statutory authorities, while confirming the enduring necessity of residential provision
for children, map out the areas in which they see the need for the out-of-home care sector to
develop. The range of themes and lacunae touched upon in their reports suggest that the system
of residential provision for children is experiencing considerable stress as it attempts to respond
to societys demands notwithstanding its frustrating limitations. This section continues to draw
upon the interviews to document the impact the system has on the children whose needs it is
there to meet. The five main themes that emerged are re-presented in the context of the
interviews, for which the experiences of boys who remained in long term care in the system were
focussed upon before widening the discussion (see 4.1.1 and Table 29 below).
Table 29 Boys 'in care' Jan 2005... and the same boys six years later
Within the traditional system

70 boys are in care
in the beginning of 2005
55 of these boys were under 12 yrs (and would not have aged out during the research)
9 of these 55 boys are no longer under a Care Order
46 are still on the books
at the end of 2010

Particular relevance
17 of these 46 boys are in residential care

23 in foster care
6 with their birth family
for Interview purposes
81
a) The system provides support but weighs heavily on both children and staff
In general the young people in long-term care from which the social workers and administrators
interviewed took their cues, had experienced a tough life. Being in care eased some of the
pressures and brought them stability (Ben*, Doris*). They found support in their peers as well as
the staff (Jeannine*).
... he was troublesome but all the group loved him... they asked about him and
got worried every time he ran away... (Jeannine*)
... he remained very close to [NN a peer ex-service user]... no one from his
family ever visited him when he was there... only [NN] would go... hes my
brother he once told me... (Jeannine*)
The children were less exposed to their families excesses in residential care and some of their
needs were well taken care of (Doris*, Tim*). However the system failed them in different ways.
One was left for six months in a precarious placement before being admitted to a service that
could have received him earlier (Jeanine*); another could not be contained in any of the services
(George*); many spent most of their life in residential care (George*, Francesca*, Daniel*) while
another had great uncertainty about his future (Pauline*).
Many of the professionals spoke passionately about the children. There was real care and they
took their interests to heart. However staff worked under duress (Ben*, Laurence*, Pauline*,
Charmaine*) and found support in supervision (Pauline*) but not all were that lucky (Chris*,
Charmaine*). There was evidence of conflict between some field and residential services (Chris*,
Pauline*, Daniel*, Ben*).
b) The significance of the family for looked-after children in residential care

The family was often portrayed in a negative light: staff believed that these childrens difficulties
stemmed from their families, which reflected the reason for which the children were being
looked-after (Pauline*, Francesca*, Daniel*, George*) and yet there is some recognition of the
importance of a childs family in determining his future even if that child is in residential care:
...It is not just the child that has to change the family situation has to
improve as well... (Charmaine*)
82
Some children were badly abused, neglected and rejected by someone in their family and a sense
of hurt came through, a feeling for the childrens sufferings (Jeannine*, Pauline*, Doris*,
Charmaine*). It was difficult for some to contemplate working with certain families, but others
thought it necessary and also saw the fruits of such an approach (Francesca*, Doris*, Tim*,
Maria*). The need for the child to keep in contact was emphasised, as was the desire for children
to be brought up in a family-based care service and only transit briefly through the residential
care system, if possible (Maria*, Mike*, Ben*, Tim*, Andrew*).
... the boy is happy to be going for weekend visits home... we increase it at his
pace... (Daniel*)
... Residential care needs to be more like a family... we cannot permit that
children stay all their life in residential care.... it needs to be provisional, for a
short time only... (Maria*)
c) To meet the present needs, the care system requires reorganisation and resources
Professionals were often in favour of rethinking the whole approach to caring (Mike*) because
the traditional system of care appeared pass and required review (Ben*). Children in the older
age groups in particular, and those who had spent their whole life in residential care needed to
have programmes that taught them skills for independent living (Jim*, Maria*) and ways of
keeping in touch with family without being overpowered by any negative dynamics there might
be (Ben*, Mike*). Domestic-style provision was called for (Laurence*, Tim*, Chris*, Maria*,
Daniel*).
... I want to understand, I still dont understand how were helping these
children by keeping them in the Homes... Dont get me wrong... the nuns are
very dedicated, but do our children lead the kind of life that their peers lead?
Take my niece for example, at 10 she is allowed to catch the bus on her own...
thats how they should learn... (Maria*)
... but [NN a civil servant] told me theyre working on it... I hope they will
take examples from where it [i.e. residential care]
is working... all the
resources were investing in psychologists and therapists... wouldnt they be

better invested in fostering for instance... ? (Maria*)
83
The Homes could find it difficult to make ends meet. Funding was minimal and tension was
discernible in situations linked with stress and overloading.
... 41, in residence yes... no, not under a Care Order, and without any income...
The Sisters raise them on Providence... (Pauline*)
The government is not realising how much funding it takes... and it is needed...
to run the Homes. [...] Ive told them already... I will close the Unit if I have
to... (Pauline*)
Resources are necessary to make ends meet but most especially to pay for carers and run the
Home. Is Pauline* right in what she is saying? Is it possible that the government is not aware of
how much it could cost to run a Home? Recent correspondence in the public media appear to
bear Pauline* out (Jones 2011). A government spokesperson wrote in a newspaper that each
child in care was costing the state some 10,000 a year. That sum apparently includes the costs
incurred by the social work agency Appogg to employ field social workers and possibly other staff
(Schiavone 2011). The Homes, he says, receive 70 a week for each child (known as the child in
care benefit), which means that the Homes receive less than 4,000 a year per child although
they also enjoy a subsidy on utility bills.
The approximate costs for running a six-bedded childrens home are worked out and reproduced
in Appendix 4. The workings indicate a cost per child that is closer to an annual sum of 30,000.
It would seem that Paulines* position is supported by the mathematics of things, as the state
subsidy is rather less than would be necessary to run the Home properly should that same Home
be expected to run by a salaried staff, rather than by members of a religious order often offering
their services for next to nothing.
Some personnel, both those forming part of a religious order as well as others who did not,
complained of being overworked and inadequately supported, paid lip service and often
exploited:
... I go home and switch on the computer at 10pm to read my mail from
work... were the only ones without even a computer here... theyve forgotten
us... (Charmaine*)
84
I have two part-timers in each flat... 10 out of 13 kids remain [there] at the
weekend... Some of them cant take it... burnout is an issue. (Pauline*)
Yet the state cannot be accused of inaction since the overall funding it provides for this sector
has been steadily improving. On the other hand, the call for additional resources must be
considered in the light of the earlier request for a reorganisation of existing services.
One might enquire as to what the service providers can do with the resources at their disposal
despite the states limited financial support? A suggestion emerges directly from the research
(Table 30).
Table 30 Some Children's Homes change address during the summer
Organisation
Ursuline Sisters
Ursuline Sisters
Ursuline Sisters
Sisters of
St. Joseph
Missionary
Society of St Paul
Dominican Sisters
Dominican Sisters
Daughters of
the Sacred Heart
Salesians of
Don Bosco
Salesians of
Don Bosco
Conservatorio
Vincenzo Bugeja
Richmond
Foundation
Childrens Home
Holiday Home location
Duration per year
* Angela House,
Guardamangia
* Piccola Casa di San
Giuseppe, Valleta
* St Rita,
Tarxien
* Dar Sagra Familja,
Zabbar
* St. Josephs,
Santa Venera
* St. Josephs,
Zabbar
* Fra Diegu,
Hamrun
* St Theresa,
Zurrieq
Don Bosco House,
Balzan
St. Patricks,
Sliema
Fejda / Jeanne Antide,
Sta Venera
KIDs,
Zejtun
Villa in Marsaxlokk
Mater Gratia House, Mscala
2 weeks each group

(4 6 gps)
1 week
Mater Gratia House, Mscala
4 weeks
Agape House, Birzebbugia
N/A
House in Qajjenza, Birzebbugia
N/A
Sila House, Marsascala
A few weeks
Qaleb il-Qamar, Xemxija
8 weeks
Premises lent or rented

each time for this purpose
Gozo: Premises rented
Organisation does not deem this
advisable for their client group
A few weeks
1 week,
plus 2 weekends a year
1 week each group
as well as other holidays
One weekend, plus
various full-day outings
N/A
* Organisations forming part of Ejjew Ghandi, formerly known as the Churchs Childrens Homes agency.
85
The survey revealed that most of the residential facilities run by the largest service provider
(Ejjew Ghandi) moved house for anything up to 8 whole weeks in the summer. Indications are
that most of the premises utilised for holiday periods may actually be owned by the Religious
Orders or by the Maltese diocese of the Catholic Church, under whose aegis they operate. Since
most of the Churchs childrens Homes are situated in convents, might it not be possible for
instance to transform at least one of these holiday residences into a small but permanent
Childrens Home, some day? This would have the effect of at least normalising one important
aspect of residential provision, even if just for a small number of children.
d) Noticeable gaps in service provision

Most interviewees said they were not aware of a formal assessment taking place before
admission (Daniel*, Ben*, Jim*, George*). Some believed the field social workers did some form
of assessment (Francesca*, Doris*, Tim*) while others were convinced that assessments were
uncommon (Pauline*, Chris*).
Oh... emergency, its [=placement] not planned usually... [...] no assessment
and no post-placement plan neither. Sometimes I suspect they [=field social
workers] give you a selection of the information available, just to convince you
to admit the boy (Daniel*).
Half of the children in the long-term care category had been admitted to a regular, long-term
facility in an emergency (Daniel*, Pauline*, Doris*, Tim*, Jeannine*) because no dedicated
emergency service existed. Many lamented the lack of appropriate facilities for adolescents
(Jeannine*, Francesca*, Ben*).
He tells me Im tired, going from one place to the other, never being able to
have a home of my own. [...] Like, how long will he keep going from one
home to another, to another, to another, to another...? [...] (Jeannine*)
Pauline* speaks of a young lad that injured a member of staff. Jeannine* mentions a young man
admitted to a service where staff were unable to handle him. One was sent away and the other
was locked up for a number of weeks or months at a stretch. Upon enquiry it transpired that in
86
both services some 95% to 100% of the staff were female. In other words gender imbalance in
the staff group was eminently evident, yet the fault of the situation getting out of hand was
reportedly, in both cases, attributed to the minors when possibly neither residential facility was
equipped to contain excesses that were to be expected given its clients history and situations.
e) An appeal to the state to meet its responsibilities towards children in the care system
States meet their obligations through legislation and regulation but only one of the professionals
interviewed spontaneously spoke about legal frameworks (Maria*) and none mentioned the
National Standards except by alluding to expected standards of practice from another service in
connection with the enforcement of house-rules with teenage residents (Jeannine*). However
two of the administrators spoke about records and, without prompting, mentioned the need for
research in the Maltese residential care field, to help the system move forward.
First there is a need to do an in-depth study... of the whole system that we

have, of how we are investing resources... of the system [...] how we are using
them... do you understand? Only then can we start looking for solutions [...]
(Charmaine*)

Taken together, the policy and practice reports paint a picture of a care system ripe for
transition: conscious of its important functions but increasingly aware of its deficiencies as well as
of the areas in which to effect change. The dilemmas resulting from multiple pressures as well as
the professionals points of view, suggest that the system can be receptive to sensitive changes
introduced in a planned and timely manner... but possibly only so long as both policy and practice
elements engage and remain in a constructive dialogue.
87
88
Chapter 8. Conclusions
This research started out asserting that when children are received into care the state assumes
some responsibility for their parenting and thus needs to offer them a certain quality of life with
services that respond to their needs. The caring function is implemented through intermediaries
working within a care system that the state is ultimately responsible for and therefore needs to
know about in detail. To ensure good quality care for all children placed in formal alternative care
structures, it was assumed that those who carry key responsibilities on behalf of the state would
want to be aware of how many such children there are; what sort of arrangements are being
made for looking after them; and ultimately, how these children are faring.
The main conclusions of this study indicate the need to take a fresh look at residential provision
for looked-after children in Malta, updating, organising and adequately supporting the systems
and services set up for the benefit of these children and their families ideally keeping track of
the children, knowing where they are living and where they can go in particular circumstances.
1. With residential care services increasingly being provided in a diversity of settings,

compiling a comprehensive list of Maltese residential provision for children without
parental care proved challenging. The findings suggest that in recent years placements and
provision have moved beyond traditional lines, with the system largely coping by
improvisation rather than responding in a planned and purposeful manner.
Official reports and academic publications consistently assert that there are 12 to 18 residential
care facilities known as childrens Homes in Malta (Cortis Micallef 2000; FSWS 2011: 181; Govt
of Malta 2008; MEPA 2003; Muscat Baron et al. 2001), which has no formal requirement for
registration of childrens residential facilities and where any facility offering an overnight service
can in fact be considered as a potential place of residence for a minor.
The replies by member states generally indicate that registration and some
form of accreditation is in place. Only Malta replied that provisions to this
effect do not exist... (Gudbrandsson 2008: 3)
Data extracted from recent placement records indicates that on any one day it was likely to find
children in care placed in some 25 different facilities (see Appendix 1), many of which also
catered for adults; however a comprehensive list of services compiled for the first time through
this research shows that there are at least 47 functioning facilities presently accepting (or willing
to accept) children without parental care (Appendix 6).
89
Taking the official FSWS figures at face value, the number of children in residential care
aged 0 to 16 has contracted by more than a third between the years 1996 (n=309)
(Muscat Baron et al. 2001) and 2010 (n=196). Moreover, even without taking into
account the huge influx of unaccompanied minors that at times constituted 36% of all
children in care, the demographic profile of children in the traditional residential care
system has changed, with the proportion of children aged under 8 years dropping from
52% in 1996 (n=161) to 34% in 2010 (n=71).
The research uncovered 51 children who were in care or looked after and who were
living at home or in other arrangements instead of in residential care or foster care
(Table 11). Their situation in some cases suggests that the traditional division of care
categories into residential and foster care may need revising, and the assumptions that
go with them may also need revising. Solid research exists that indicates ways of
organising care systems so as to meet various needs (Anglin 2004; Clough et al. 2006).
2. Children entering residential care are channelled into one or other of its sub-systems,
however little weight is given to assessment in choosing which service would suit the child
best. Admissions are frequently precipitated by crises that dictate placement choice.
Differences in the placement data suggested that the care system in Malta is composed of a
number of sub-systems running in parallel with each other: with issues in one sub-system rarely
affecting the others; each system being associated with a set of facilities, trajectories and exits
and sometimes even fieldwork agencies. What was held to be one system of care appears to be
made up of three distinct sub-systems organised in sets of homes for boys, girls and
unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. Usually existing within dedicated facilities, the systems
sometimes ran in parallel and, to some extent, overlapped, as depicted by combining Figure 17
and Table 26:
Boys
Girls
UMAS
Predominant Ages
in Residential Care
0 ... to ... 16
+==========+
0 ... to ... 18
+===============+
14 to 18
+========+
Dedicated
St Patricks
St Josephs
Don Bosco
Fejda
Jeanne Antide
Fatima
Liedna
Sliem
90
Overlapping
Creche
Ejjew Ghandi
Osanna
(till age 9)
Creche
Creche
Ejjew Ghandi
(no limit)
Fieldwork
Agency
FSWS
(LAC)
FSWS
(LAC)
Osanna
AWAS
Interview data indicated that the point of entry into the system of children in long-term care was
often marked by a crisis of some sort that opened the way for state intervention and secured a
placement. However, if a needs assessment of some sort took place, experienced professionals
saw little evidence of it:
The system as it is in Malta, the only places that do assessments are Treetops*
and Monkeyspace*... as for the rest, no proper assessment is done. Children
are admitted on a crisis basis... normally: emergencies, weekends, 5-year olds
roaming the streets... (Pauline*).
About half of the children enquired about during the interviews, those who were in long-term
care had been admitted in an emergency according to the professionals (Daniel*, Pauline*,
Doris*, Tim*, Jeannine*). Most of the staff were not aware of a formal assessment taking place
(Daniel*, Ben*, Jim*, George*).
3. Once taken into the care of the Maltese state, for many children residential care often
became a long-term prospect, possibly for longer than should have been necessary.
Many children spent a long time in residential care and some were not reintegrated
into their families before they simply aged out of the system.
The younger a child was taken into care the more likely Care became a long-term
prospect.
a) The aim of a care placement should be to achieve permanence, though not necessarily in
a residential care home (Clough et al. 2006). A placements aim should be clarified early
on, after a participatory assessment is carried out. This would indicate which path, out of
a number of different ways of achieving permanence, is to be followed.
b) For children to drift within the system until that system can no longer cater for them is
not usually a good way of conceiving a placement and could constitute a case of
institutional abuse (Gil 1982).
c) Younger children have more options open to them, and long-term care is not an option
to be taken by default, especially if the alternative solution on offer is itself unsatisfactory
(SOS Children's Villages 2009).
d) The children who are taken under the protection of the state tend to remain in care for
many years. This appears to be more likely if they happen to be placed while still quite
young in a residential care environment providing placements for indefinite periods
(Table 19).
91
e) Some 86% of the 96 children in the snapshot data for Dec 2010 had spent more than one
year in care. In fact some children are spending far too much of their young lives in nonfamily based care settings, sometimes nearly all of their childhood years (Figure 14).
4. Certain children appear to be 'invisible' to the Looked-After Children system.

Perhaps most interestingly, during interviews or upon enquiry to clarify apparent discrepancies, a
number of invisible children were discovered to be living in residential care, there being no
record of their placement in the system:
They have over 50 kids, practically all refugees... only 9 came through the
social workers, and the others... the Homes Director was pressured into
accepting them ... 41, in residence yes... no, not under a Care Order (Pauline*)
Some children clearly availing of formal residential care services were invisible within the lookedafter children system since they did not feature in the social services official database. They had
been admitted on foot of a private arrangement between the parents and the Homes
administrator. A number of cases were uncovered in the research:
a) 41 out of 50 children living in Lilliput* for 5 nights a week did so by private arrangement,
as their parents needed to work;
b) A disabled teenager attending school while living in Graceland* - a home for 140 old
people (Cutajar 2011);
c) A 13-year-old boy privately accommodated for three weeks in Treetops* without
involving social services (Vella 2011), spending his days in residence with some rather
disturbed adolescents;
d) All Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers (UMAS) are covered by a Care Order but do
not feature within the Looked-After Children records, making them invisible to this
system notwithstanding being children in care. The fact that they do not show up in the
FSWS dataset was commented upon in the LAC Review (Aldgate et al. 2008);
e) The CYPAB dataset did not record even one single placement in the state mental health
hospital between 2005 and 2010. However the FSWS data did mention some, while the
Commissioner for Childrens data indicated both the presence of a 5 year old in the state
psychiatric facility five years ago, as well as claiming there were 21 children living in the
state mental health hospital in August 2010 (OCfC 2010b), where the only dedicated
childrens Unit can accommodate a maximum of 8 residents... in fact this document,
unearthed in the research, claimed that most of the other children were in adult wards
and one was not accounted for. Some of these 21 children were under a Care Order;
92
f)
The system hides its failures: some children in care are sent home because such a
course of action enhances their welfare, others because the system is unable to cope
with them. These youngsters remain on the periphery of care, sometimes covered by a
Care Order but the state entirely powerless to enforce it because the present Care
system is still not equipped to intervene effectively in certain situations.
5. Information systems on children in state-sponsored care need to be improved as they do

not capture the variety of information on the ground. This would enable care provision to
be better organised, admissions better regulated and services more appropriately tailored,
matched to needs and resourced.
The available aggregate data on children in the care of the state (in view of a Care Order being
taken out on them) appears to be rather inaccurate. No matter whether one looks for this data in
official publications from the National Statistics Office, from Parliamentary Questions, or from
documents Malta presented to the United Nations... the figures are nearly always different. This
matter is expanded upon in:
Appendix 5 (Errors in the Datasets and in Official Publications), and
Table 34 (Issues of reliability with respect to official Care Order statistics):
a) There is a need to register the facilities where children are being kept so at least to be
able to plan and execute an inspection and monitoring service (Gudbrandsson 2008).
b) That children should be found living in residential care without a state social work agency
being notified should give cause for concern these days (Cantwell 2010; Vella 2011).
c) Physical and financial resources being currently provided to certain Childrens Homes
(Schiavone 2011) are woefully inadequate and do not even approximate what is required
to provide quality care for these children (see estimates in Appendix 4), regardless of the
fact that, at the end of the day, most or all of these children, directly or indirectly fall
under the responsibility of the state. A plan that takes account of what facilities are
available and what else is needed could better match service supply to demand. Having a
residential care system better organised and providing targeted services would likely
make a better case for the financing of this sector and would also assist in directing
resources to the system according to where they are most needed.
93
8.1 A final word...
A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment,

or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that
environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by
the State. (United Nations 1989: 20.1)
My research took a look at the characteristics of a particular cohort of vulnerable children, those
who in recent years directly experienced residential provision in Malta. It sought out where they
were living and, from various perspectives, pieced together an impression of how the Care
System was working for them.
It was recognised that these youngsters, all children without parental care, often depend on
the State rather than their parents, to safeguard and promote their welfare. However, should the
state take out Care Orders on children unless it can offer them something better than their
parents would likely be able to give them, in the long term? Insofar as residential provision for
these children is concerned, the picture that emerged indicates that services can, and need to, be
variously improved across the board.
Notwithstanding the scant resources available to conduct this research, the findings it yielded
and the conclusions reached appear to be significant. It is my hope that this study can be another
small step on the journey to improve the life and prospects of those children towards whom the
state, in the name of Maltese society, has a duty of care.
Thus the final message here can simply be that in terms of basic concrete measures, the Maltese
state can better fulfil its obligation to offer these children special protection and assistance
once it:
acknowledges and records the very existence of each of these needy youngsters;
becomes actively aware of where they can be, and are being, sent to live their childhood;
and starts carefully monitoring and better supporting the care systems serving them.
94
Bibliography................
Aldgate, J, Blewett, J & Rose, W 2008, Services for Looked After Children in Malta, The Open
University, Milton Keynes.
Anglin, JP 2002, Pain, normality, and the struggle for congruence : reinterpreting residential care
for children and youth, Haworth Press, Binghampton, N.Y.
2004, 'Creating Well-Functioning Residential Care and Defining Its Place in a System of
Care', Child & Youth Care Forum, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 175-92.
Anglin, JP & Knorth, EJ 2004, 'Editorial: Competing Declarations on Residential Care for Children
and YouthStockholm Versus Malm', Child & Youth Care Forum, vol. 33, pp. 141-9.
Archdiocese of Malta 2011, Diocesan Commission Ejjew Gandi (Childrens Homes), Malta RC
Church, viewed 26 July 2011 2011, <http://maltadiocese.org/lang/en/secretariatcommissions/diocesan-commission-ejjew-ghandi-childrens-homes/>.
Attard, E 2009, 'Australian PM apologises for child abuse', The Malta Independent, 17 Nov 2009,
viewed 15 August 2011
<http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=97331>.
2010, 'Fighting for the rights of children in care', The Malta Independent, 9 August 2010,
viewed 25 June 2011, <http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=110380>.
2011, 'St Joseph Childrens Home - No future without a past', The Malta Independent Online,
20 March 2011, <http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=122174>.
Bain, K 2009, 'Parental Responsibility', Social Work & Society, vol. 7, no. 1.
Barn, R & Mantovani, N 2007, 'Young Mothers and the Care System: Contextualizing Risk and
Vulnerability', British Journal of Social Work, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 225-43.
Battistino, J 2006, 'The Young Offenders Unit', in Office of the Commissioner for Children (ed.), A
Fair Deal. A Study on Children and Young People with Very Challenging Behaviour, Media Centre
Publications, Malta, pp. 60-5.
Bayes, K, Davidson, J, Wilkinson, C, Docherty, B, Anderson, M & Hill, M 2008, 'Higher Aspirations,
Brighter Futures', children, vol. 15839, p. 0.
BCN, Save the Children, EveryChild, ISS Geneva & SOS Kinderdorf International 2010, A
Consultation on Definitions of Formal Care for Children, Better Care Network, New York,
<http://www.crin.org/docs/Definitions%20for%20Formal%20Care.doc>.
Bebbington, A & Miles, J 1989, 'The Background of Children who enter Local Authority Care',
British Journal of Social Work, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 349-68.
Beedell, C 1970, Residential life with children, Routledge & K. Paul, London.
Berridge, D 1985, Children's Homes, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
95
Bonello, M, Mallia, F & Vassallo, L 2006, Operational Review and Financial Audit of HSS (FSWS)
and YPU (MCH), MFSS - MHEC, Valletta.
Brandon, M, Bailey, S & Belderson, P 2010, Building on the learning from serious case reviews: a
two-year analysis of child protection database notifications 2007-2009 Department of Education,
London.
Brandon, M, Bailey, S, Belderson, P, Gardner, R, Sidebotham, P, Dodsworth, J, Warren, C & Black,
J 2009, Understanding Serious Case Reviews and their Impact - A Biennial Analysis of Serious Case
Reviews 2005-07, Department for Children, Schools and Families, London.
Browne, K 2009, The Risk of Harm to Young Children in Institutional Care, Save the Children /
Better Care Network, London, viewed 27/05/2011,
<http://www.crin.org/docs/The_Risk_of_Harm.pdf>.
Browne, K, Hamilton-Giachritsis, C, Johnson, R & Chou, S 2005, 'Young children in institutional
care in Europe', Early Childhood Matters, vol. 105, no. Dec 2005.
Buchanan, A 1995, 'Young people's views on being looked after in out-of-home-care under The
Children Act 1989* 1', Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 17, no. 5-6, pp. 681-96.
Busuttil, C 2008, 'Children's Commissioner critical of youngsters' uprooting', The Times of Malta,
7 May 2008, National, viewed 17 August 2011,
<http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080507/local/childrens-commissioner-criticalof-youngsters-uprooting.207046>.
Calleja, C 2010, 'Children's silent scream for help', The Times of Malta, 2 August 2010, viewed 25
June 2011, <http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100802/local/childrens-silentscream-for-help.320597>.
Canali, C, Vecchiato, T & Whittaker, JK 2008, Assessing the "evidence-base" of intervetion for
vulnerable children and their families, Fondazione Emanuela Zancan Onlus, Padova.
Cantwell, N 2005, 'The challenges of out-of-home care', Early Childhood Matters, vol. 105, no.
Dec 2005, p. 10, <http://www.bernardvanleer.org/English/Home/Ourpublications/Browse_by_series.html?ps_page=2&ps_count=0&getSeries=4>.
2010, Refining Definitions of Formal Alternative Child-Care Settings: A Discussion Paper,
<www.crin.org/docs/Definitions%20for%20Formal%20Care.doc>.
Cantwell, N & Holzscheiter, A 2008, Article 20 : children deprived of their family environment,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.
Cefai, C 2006, 'Social, emotional and behavioural difficulties in Malta: An educational
perspective', Journal of Maltese Education Research, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 19.
Chad, P 1998, 'Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing',
European Journal of Marketing, vol. 32, no. 9/10, p. 785.
Chipenda-Dansokho, S & Centre for Social Policy 2003, 'The determinants and influence of size on
residential settings for children', International Journal of Child & Family Welfare, vol. 6, no. 3, p.
11.
96
Clough, R 2008, Groups and Groupings in Residential Child Care, NCERCC, viewed 20 August 2011,
<http://www.ncb.org.uk/ncercc/ncercc%20practice%20documents/ncercc_groups_and_groupin
gs.pdf>.
Clough, R, Bullock, R & Ward, A 2006, What Works in Residential Child Care: A review of research
evidence and the practical considerations, NCB / NCERCC, London, viewed 19 August 2011,
<http://www.ncb.org.uk/dotpdf/open%20access%20%20phase%201%20only/whatworks_ncercc_200604.pdf>.
Cortis Micallef, C 2000, Residential Homes for Children in Malta - an Overview, Ministry for Social
Policy, Valletta.
Council of Europe 2005, Recommendation Rec(2005)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member
States on the rights of children living in residential institutions, (16th March 2005) edn,
Strasbourg, viewed 19/8/2011, <https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=835953>.
2008, Towards an Active, Fair and Socially Cohesive Europe. Report of High-Level Task Force
on Social Cohesion, Council of Europe, Strasbourg,
<http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/source/TFSC(2007)31E.doc>.
Courtney, ME & Iwaniec, D 2009, Residential care of children : comparative perspectives, Oxford
University Press, Oxford ; New York.
CRC 2000, Convention on the Rights of the Child. Consideration of Reports submitted by states
parties under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the
Rights of the Child: MALTA, CRC/C/15/Add.129, United Nations, viewed 21 August 2011,
<http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3ae6afc50.pdf>.
Crimmens, D & Milligan, I (eds) 2005, Facing forward: residential child care in the 21st century,
Russell House, Lyme Regis.
Csky, C 2009, Keeping Children Out of Harmful Insitutions, London.
Cutajar, R 2011, Community Home, (Location withheld for confidentiality), 9 May 2011, E-Mail.
CYPAB 2008, Annual Report 2007, Children and Young Persons Advisory Board, Malta.
2009, Annual Report 2008, Children and Young Persons Advisory Board, Malta.
2010, Annual Report 2009, Children and Young Persons Advisory Board, Malta.
Daniel, B, Wassell, S & Gilligan, R 2010, Child development for child care and protection workers,
2nd ed. edn, Jessica Kingsley, London.
Daphne Programme, World Health Organization & University of Birmingham 2005, Mapping the
number and characteristics of children under three in institutions across Europe at risk of harm,
University of Birmingham, Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology, Birmingham.
Daphne Programme, World Health Organization, ROfE & University of Birmingham 2007, DeInstitutionalising and Transforming Children's Services: A Guide to Good Practice, University of
Birmingham Inst.of Local Government Studs.
97
Dar tal-Providenza 2009, Who We Are, viewed 19 July 2011,

<http://www.dartalprovidenza.org/Page.aspx?pageid=3&lid=1>.
Davidson, J 2008, 'Meeting the Needs of Children without Parental Care: A Contemporary
International Policy Analysis', 10-4-2008, <http://eusarf2008.outcomeevaluation.org/presentations/download/33_Jennifer_Davidson.pdf>.
Department of Child Safety 2006, Improving Permanency for Children in Care - a Discussion Paper,
Queensland Government,,
<http://www.childsafety.qld.gov.au/fostercare/documents/improving-permanencydiscussion.pdf>.
Dept. of Health 1991, Patterns & outcomes in child placement: messages from current research
and their implications, HMSO, London.
DoC-CSS & PeakCare QL 2010, 2010. A Contemporary Model of Residential Care for Young People
in Care, Department of Communities (Child Safety Services), Queensland, viewed 20 August 2011,
<http://www.peakcare.org.au/media/user_files/documents/News/7_Policy_Model-ofResidential-Care_FINAL1.pdf>.
Docherty, C, Kendrick, A, Sloan, P & Lerpiniere, J 2006, Designing with care - Interior design and
residential childcare, SIRCC / Farm 7, Glasgow,
<http://www.sircc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Designing_with_Care.pdf>.
DSWS 2009a, Model Policies and Procedures for Out-of-Home Child Care, Dept of Social Welfare
Standards, viewed 16-5-2011,
<https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/SocProt/family/dsws/outofhome_child_care.aspx>.
2009b, Standards of Out-of-Home Child Care, Dept of Social Welfare Standards, viewed 16-52011,
<https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/SocProt/family/dsws/outofhome_child_care.aspx#Standard
s of Out-of-Home Child Care>.
Eisenhardt, KM 1989, 'Building Theories from Case Study Research', Academy of Management
Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532-50.
Emond, R 2004, 'Rethinking Our Understanding of the Resident Group in Group Care', Child &
Youth Care Forum, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 193-207.
Escobedo, A & Fernandez, E 2002, National Report, Spain. Mapping of Care Services and the Care
Workforce, Barcelona, viewed 22 June 2011, <http://144.82.31.4/reports/spainwp4.pdf>.
Eurochild 2007, Ending Child Poverty within the EU? A review of the 2006-08 national reports on
strategies for social protection and social inclusion, Brussels, viewed 18 August 2011,
<http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/user_upload/files/NAPs_report_2006_final.pdf>.
2010, Children in Alternative Care - National Surveys, viewed 21 August 2011,
<http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Publications/Eurochild_Reports/Eurochild%2
0Publication%20-%20Children%20in%20Alternative%20Care%20%202nd%20Edition%20January2010.pdf>.
Eurostat 2009, Youth in Europe. A Statistical Portrait, 2009 edn, Population and Social Conditions,
Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
98
EveryChild 2008, Why Do Separated Children Matter? A Policy Briefing Paper, Better Care
Network,, New York, viewed 15 June 2011,
<http://www.crin.org/resources/infoDetail.asp?ID=19330>.
Farrugia, A 2006, 'Current Services and Residential Care', in Office of the Commissioner for
Children (ed.), A Fair Deal. A Study on Children and Young People with Very Challenging
Behaviour, Media Centre Publications, Malta, pp. 124-85.
Farrugia, R 2000, 'Parental Responsibility and State Intervention', California Western
International Law Journal, vol. Vol. 31, no. Issue 1 (Fall 2000), p. 13.
2005, Study on the Enforcement of Family Law Judgements, T.M.C. Asser Instituut,
<http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/publications/docs/family_rights/malta_en.pdf>.
Fernandez Del Valle, J & Casas, F 2002, 'Child residential care in the Spanish social protection
system', International Journal of Child & Family Welfare, vol. 3, p. 16,
<http://www.acco.be/download/nl/9012488/file/journal_2002-jg05-3child_residential_care_in_the_spanish_social_protection_system.pdf>.
Finkelstein, NE 1991, Children and youth in limbo : a search for connections, Praeger, New York ;
London.
Fisher, L, Ames, EW, Chisholm, K & Savoie, L 1997, 'Problems reported by parents of Romanian
orphans adopted to British Columbia', International Journal of Behavioral Development, vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 67-82.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C & Nachmias, D 1996, Research methods in the social sciences, 5th ed. edn,
Edward Arnold, London.
Franzn, E, Vinnerljung, B & Hjern, A 2008, 'The Epidemiology of Out-of-Home Care for Children
and Youth: A National Cohort Study', British Journal of Social Work, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1043-59.
FSWS 2010, Foundation for Social Welfare Services, viewed 6 August 2011,
<https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/SocProt/family/fsws/fsws.aspx>.
2011, Operations Report 2007-2009, Foundation for Social Welfare Services, Malta.
Giddens, A 2009, Sociology, 6th ed. / Anthony Giddens. edn, Polity, Cambridge.
Gil, E 1982, 'Institutional Abuse of Children in Out-of-Home Care', Child & Youth Services, vol. 4,
no. 1-2, pp. 7-13.
Gilligan, R 2009, Promoting resilience : a resource guide on working with children in the care
system, 2nd edn, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.
Gonzi, L 2003, 'Urging the corporate sector to sponsor volunteer care initiatives', The Malta
Business Times, 03-9-2003, <http://www.businesstoday.com.mt/2003/09/03/opinion.html>.
Government of Ireland 2009, Commission to inquire into child abuse report [electronic resource],
Government of Ireland, viewed 18/08/2011, <http://www.childabusecommission.ie/>.
99
Govt of Malta 1994, Detention of a Person at Savio College Regulations, Valletta,

<http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=9557&l=1>.
1998, Convention on the Rights of the Child. Initial reports of States Parties due in 1992.
Addendum, CRC/C/3/Add.56, CRC. Committee on the Rights of the Child, viewed 15 May 2011,
<http://www.bayefsky.com/reports/malta_crc_c_3_add.56_1997.php>.
2001a, The Children in Care Benefit: An Overview, Ministry for Social Policy, Valletta, viewed
20 July 2011, <http://www.doi.gov.mt/en/press_releases/2001/03/pr0288.asp>.
2001b, Malta. National Report on the Follow-up to the World Summit for Children, Ministry
for Social Policy, Valletta, viewed 6 August 2011,
<https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/download.aspx?id=1351>.
2002, Children, National Statistics Office, Malta.
2003, Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:
Initial Reports Submitted by States Parties Under Articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: Addendum:
Malta, United Nations.
2008, Response of the Maltese Government to the report of the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to
Malta from 19 to 26 May 2008, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, viewed 8 August 2011,
<http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/mlt/2011-06-inf-eng.pdf;
http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/mlt/2011-06-inf-annexes.htm>.
2010, Children 2010, National Statistics Office, Valletta.
2011, Social Welfare Standards Legislation, M.E.E.F., viewed 6 August 2011,
<https://secure2.gov.mt/socialpolicy/SocProt/family/dsws/legislation.aspx>.
Grech, H 2011, 'Church accused of delaying tactics', The Times of Malta, 03-4-2011, viewed 24
June 2011, <http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110403/local/church-accused-ofdelaying-tactics.357980>.
Grima, N 2009, 'Girl, 15, being kept in prison', The Malta Independent, 13 Dec 2009, viewed 25
July 2011, <http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=98701>.
2010, 'Answers required', The Malta Independent, 22 Aug 2010, viewed 16 August 2011,
<http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=111055>.
Gudbrandsson, B 2004, Children in Institutions: prevention and alternative care, Council of
Europe, Strasbourg, viewed 17 June 2011,
<http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.40/GDD_2005_CE_Children_Institutions.pdf>.
2008, Rights of Children in Institutions. Report on the implementation of the Council of
Europe Recommendation Rec(2005)5 on the rights of children living in residential institutions,
Council of Europe, Strasbourg, viewed 26 June 2011,
<http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/childrenincare/ECDCS(2009)9%20Report%20on%20the%20I
mplementation%20of%20Rec(2005)5.pdf>.
Heffernan, R 2002, 'The Possible as the Art of Politics: Understanding Consensus Politics',
Political Studies, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 742-60.
100
Hicks, L, Gibbs, I, Weatherly, H & Byford, S 2009, 'Management, Leadership and Resources in
Children's Homes: What Influences Outcomes in Residential Child-Care Settings?', British Journal
of Social Work, vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 828-45.
Hillan, L 2005, 'Reclaiming Residential Care. A Positive Choice for Children and Young People in
Care', viewed 24/5/2010,
<http://www.churchilltrust.com.au/site_media/fellows/Hilllan_Lisa_2005.pdf>.
Hosie, A 2006, 'Residential Care in Europe - Opportunities and Threats', paper presented to Child
Rights, the Role of Families and Alternative Care Policies - Developments, Trends and Challenges
in Europe, Bucharest, 2 - 3 Feb 2006, viewed 23 June 2011,
<http://www.childrights.ro/downloads/conference/Andrew%20Hosie%20%20Conference%20Paper.pdf>.
Hudson, J & Lowe, S 2009, Understanding the policy process : analysing the welfare policy and
practice, 2nd ed. edn, Policy, Bristol.
ICS 2010, International Charity Society, viewed 20 August 2011, <http://www.icsmalta.org/>.
ISS & UNICEF 2004, Improving Protection for Children Without Parental Care,
<http://www.iss.org.au/documents/ACALLFORINTLSTANDARDS.pdf>.
Jarvis, P 1999, The practitioner-researcher : developing theory from practice, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, Calif.
Johnston, D 2011, Looked After Children: Care Planning, Placement and Review, 1 edn, Suffolk, 18
May, Policy and Guidance.
Johnston, W 2011, 'No guarded shelter for teenage thief', The Times of Malta, 24 June 2011,
National, viewed 24 June 2011,
<http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110624/local/No-guarded-shelter-for-teenagethief.372204>.
Jones, J 2011, 'Reflections on allegations over institute', The Times of Malta, 25 May 2011,
viewed 25 July 2011,
<http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110525/letters/Reflections-on-allegations-overinstitute.367069>.
Justice Scicluna, D 2011, Decree: Case 542/2010, 22 June 2011 edn, Malta, 18 August 2011,
Decree,
<http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/courtservices/Judgements/search.aspx?func=pdftext>.
Kane, S 2007, Care Planning for Children in Residential Care, NCERCC, viewed 25 June 2011,
<http://www.ncb.org.uk/ncercc/ncercc%20practice%20documents/ncercc_careplanningforrcc.p
df>.
Kelleher, P, Kelleher, C & Corbett, M 2000, Left out on their own : young people leaving care in
Ireland, Oak Tree Press in association with Focus Ireland, Dublin.
Kendrick, A, Steckley, L & Lerpiniere, J 2008, 'Ethical issues, research and vulnerability: gaining
the views of children and young people in residential care', Children's Geographies, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 79-93.
101
Keshavarzian, G 2011, Definitions of Formal Care, Senior Coordinator, Better Care Network, New
York, 20th May, E-Mail.
Kirton, D 2008, 'The Pursuit of Permanence: A Study of the English Child Care System, Ian Sinclair,
Claire Baker, Jenny Lee and Ian Gibbs, London, Jessica Kingsley, 2007, pp. 320, ISBN
978143105954, 29.99', British Journal of Social Work, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 1258-9.
Kuhn, TS 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions. Second edition, enlarged, [Chicago,
London:] University of Chicago Press.
Lane, D 2011, The Twelve Supports for Residential Care, viewed 21 June 2011,
<http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/professional-insights/the-twelve-supports-forresidential-care>.
Laws of Malta [Chapter 283] 1980, Children and Young Persons (Care Orders) Act, Malta,
<http://www.mjha.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8773&l=1>.
Laws of Malta [Chapter 462] 2003, Commissioner for Children Act, Malta,
<http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8928&l=1>.
Laws of Malta [L.N. 205] 2009, Immigration Act - Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers
Regulations, 2009, Malta,
<http://www.justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lp&itemid=20909&l=1>.
Lay, M & Papadopoulos, I 2009, 'Sexual maltreatment of unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors
from the Horn of Africa: A mixed method study focusing on vulnerability and prevention', Child
Abuse & Neglect, vol. 33, no. 10, pp. 728-38.
Lay, M, Papadopoulos, I & Gebrehiwot, A 2007, Safer UK : preventing sexual maltreatment of
unaccompanied asylum seeking minors and improving services for them, Middlesex University,
London.
Little, M, Kohm, A & Thompson, R 2005, 'The impact of residential placement on child
development: research and policy implications', International Journal of Social Welfare, vol. 14,
no. 3, pp. 200-9.
Mainey, A & Crimmens, D 2006, Fit for the future? Residential child care in the United Kingdom,
National Children's Bureau, London.
Malta. House of Representatives 2006, Meeting No. 68, House Social Affairs Committee, Valletta,
viewed 21 August 2011,
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fp
arlament.mt%2Ffile.aspx%3Ff%3D1405&ei=mlZRTrPUN4SYhQeNPjQBg&usg=AFQjCNEmvUy5LjHAnZmyP8czEqb-ll4gDg&sig2=0-Lb0vyyjW6P_pRzsN0HQQ>.
Massa, A 2009, 'Girl with 'no mental illness' at Mount Carmel', The Times of Malta, 22 Feb 2009,
National, viewed 16 August 2011,
<http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090222/local/girl-with-no-mental-illness-atmount-carmel.245954>.
Mayock, P & OSullivan, E 2008, 'Youth homelessness in Ireland: the emergence of a social
problem', Youth Studies Ireland, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 15.
102
McRae, J 2006, Children looked after by local authorities : the legal framework, Social Work
Inspection Agency, Edinburgh.
MEPA 2003, Social Facilities and Community Care - Topic Paper, Malta Environment and Planning
Authority, Floriana, viewed 9 August 2011, <http://www.mepa.org.mt/file.aspx?f=3036>.
Millham, S 1986, Lost in care : the problems of maintaining links between children in care and
their families, Gower, Aldershot.
Ministry for Social Policy 2004, Zammit Report, Dept of Family Welfare, Sta Venera, Malta.
Muscat Azzopardi, M 2006, 'History of Services offered in Malta over the past 50 years', in Office
of the Commissioner for Children (ed.), A Fair Deal. A Study on Children and Young People with
Very Challenging Behaviour, Media Centre Publications, Malta, pp. 94-123.
2009, 'Where is Home? The Voice of Children and Young Persons Living In Care', paper
presented to Where is Home? Exploring therapeutic interventions with children in out of home
care and their families, Malta, 12 - 14 March 2009.
Muscat Azzopardi, M, Sciberras, R, Bugeja, V, Farrugia, A & Gouder, E 2009, Sustainable
Integration and Operation of Government/Church Placements (unpublished doc), Ministry for
Social Policy, Valletta, Malta, 2009.
Muscat Baron, A, Muscat Baron, Y & Spencer, NJ 2001, 'The care and health needs of children in
residential care in the Maltese Islands', Child: Care, Health & Development, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 25162.
OCfC 2006, A Fair Deal. A Study on Children and Young People with Very Challenging Behaviour,
Office of the Commissioner for Children: Media Centre Publications, Malta.
2010a, Inquiry on Care Orders, Office of the Commissioner for Children, Malta.
2010b, Response to Consultation Document, Office of the Commissioner for Children, Malta,
<http://ec.europa.eu/justice/news/consulting_public/0009/contributions/public_authorities/016
_commissioner_for_children_malta_part_1.pdf>.
2011, Inquiry on Minors in Conflict with the Law, Office of the Commissioner for Children,
Malta.
Pace, C, Carabott, J, Dibben, A & Micallef, E 2009, Unaccompanied Minors in Malta: Their
Numbers and the Policies and Arrangements for their Reception, Return and Integration.,
European Migration Network, Valletta, viewed 24 June 2011,
<http://www.mjha.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_EMNUnaccompanied%20Minors%20Study%20FINAL%20VERSION%20(c).pdf
http://www.mjha.gov.mt/MediaCenter/PDFs/1_EMN-Unaccompanied%20Minors%20Study%20%20STATISTICS%20(b).pdf>.
Packman, J & Parker, RA 1968, Child care needs and numbers, Allen & Unwin, London.
Parliamentary Questions 2010, PQ 19652: Tfal - Care Order [tr. Children - Care Order], House of
Representatives, Malta.
103
2011, PQ 25659: Minorenni li ntbaghtu l-Habs [tr. Minors sent to prison], House of
Representatives, Malta.
Pinheiro, PS 2006, World Report on Violence Against Children, United Nations, Geneva,
<http://www.crin.org/docs/UNVAC_World_Report_on_Violence_against_Children.pdf>.
Pisani, J 2003, 'Aktar allegazzjonijiet: Patrijiet jabbuzaw mit-tfal... tfal kbar jabbuzaw miz-zghar
(tr. "More Allegations: Monks abusing of children... in turn abusing of younger ones")', It-Torca,
viewed 16-5-2011, <http://www.it-torca.com/news2.asp?artid=1453>.
Richmond Foundation 1999, Villa Chelsea, viewed 19 July 2011,
<http://www.richmond.org.mt/villa_chelsea?l=1>.
Rowe, J, Hundleby, M & Garnett, L 1989, Child care now : a survey of placement patterns, British
Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, London.
Rushton, A & Dance, C 2002, 'Quality Protects: A Commentary on the Government's Agenda and
the Evidence Base', Child and Adolescent Mental Health, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 60-5.
Ryan, GW & Bernard, HR 2003, 'Techniques to Identify Themes', Field Methods, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
85-109.
Salesians of Don Bosco 2008, Don Bosco House Project, SDB, viewed 15 August 2011,
<http://www.salesiansmalta.org/content/st-patricks-sliema-don-bosco-house-project>.
Schiavone, M 2011, 'Help to religious carers', The Times of Malta, 4 June 2011, viewed 21 August
2011, <http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110604/letters/Help-to-religiouscarers.368797>.
Schiraldi, V & Zeidenberg, J 1997, 'The Risks Juveniles Face When They Are Incarcerated With
Adults', viewed 16 June 2011, <http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/9702_REP_RiskJuvenilesFace_JJ.pdf>.
Schmied, V 2006, Models of service delivery and interventions for children and young people with
high needs [electronic resource] : literature review / [Virginia Schmied, Suzanne Brownhill, Peter
Walsh], PANDORA electronic collection, NSW Dept. of Community Services, Ashfield, N.S.W. :.
Schwarz, JO 2005, 'Pitfalls in implementing a strategic early warning system', foresight, vol. 7, no.
4, pp. 22-30.
Scottish Government 2007, Historical abuse systemic review, Scottish Government, Edinburgh.
Sharpe, C 2007, In Care in Therapy ? A consideration of the usefulness of psychoanalytic theory for
the care of young people living in children's homes, viewed 19 August 2011,
<http://www.goodenoughcaring.com/WritingsArticle.aspx?cpid=31>.
Sinclair, I & Gibbs, I 1998, Children's homes: a study in diversity, Wiley, Chichester.
Skee, E 2011, The Salesians in Malta, viewed 6 August 2011,
<http://www.stpatrickspastpupils.org/history.htm>.
Smith, M 2009, Rethinking residential child care : positive perspectives, Policy, Bristol.
104
SOS Children's Villages 2009, Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, SOS Children's
Villages International, Innsbruck.
Spiteri, D & Law, K 2010, 'Citizenship Education and Young People in Care in a Maltese Context',
paper presented to Education and Citizenship in a Globalising World, London, 19 November 2010,
viewed 25 June 2011,
<http://www.ioe.ac.uk/about/documents/About_Overview/Spiteri_D_Law_K.pdf>.
Stein, M 2004, What works for young people leaving care? Mike Stein, 2nd ed. edn, Barnardo's,
Ilford.
2006, 'Research Review: Young people leaving care', Child & Family Social Work, vol. 11, no.
3, pp. 273-9.
Sultana, M 1987, 'L- Opra Socjali tal-Knisja f'Malta permezz ta' l-Istituti tat-Tfal, ca. 1880-1945',
B.Ed. (Hons.) thesis, University of Malta.
Thoresen, SH & Liddiard, M 2011, 'Failure of Care in State Care: In-Care Abuse and Postcare
Homelessness', Children Australia, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 4-11.
Tizard, J, Clarke, RVG & Sinclair, I 1975, Varieties of residential experience. , London & Boston:
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Tolfree, D 2003, Community based care for separated children, Save the Children Sweden,
Stockholm, viewed 16 May 2011, <http://www.rb.se/NR/rdonlyres/A9FFDB70-57BD-474F-B14E60783D17881D/0/Communitybasedcareforseparatedchildren.pdf>.
Trster, H 1994, 'Prevalence and functions of stereotyped behaviors in nonhandicapped children
in residential care', Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology: An official publication of the
International Society for Research in Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 7997.
UN Secretary-General 2006, Report of the independent expert for the United Nations study on
violence against children, United Nations,
<http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports/SG_violencestudy_en.pdf>.
UNICEF 2000, Report on the Conference on Children Deprived of Parental Care: Rights and
Realities, Regional Office for the CEE/CIS and Baltic States, Budapest,
<www.ceecis.org/child_protection/word/BudapRep00.doc >.
United Nations 1989, 'Convention on the Rights of the Child', viewed 24/05/2010,
<http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm>.
2010, Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children : resolution / adopted by the General
Assembly, A/RES/64/142, UN General Assembly, viewed 29-05-2011,
<http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4c3acd162.html>.
Vakili-Zad, C 2006, 'Counting the homeless in Malta', Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 141-57.
Vella, J 2011, Recent short-term admission, (Location withheld for confidentiality), Email.
105
Waddell, C, Macmillan, H & Pietrantonio, AM 2004, 'How Important is Permanency Planning for
Children? Considerations for Pediatricians Involved in Child Protection', Journal of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics, vol. 25, no. (4), pp. 285-93.
Wagner, G 1988, Residential care. [Vol.1], A positive choice : report of the Independent Review of
Residential Care, H.M.S.O., London.
Wagner, G & Sinclair, I 1988, Residential care. [Vol.2], The research reviewed : literature surveys
commissioned by the Independent Review of Residential Care, H.M.S.O, London.
Whitaker, DS, Archer, L & Hicks, L 1998, Working in children's homes : challenges and
complexities, Wiley, Chichester.
White, KJ 2008, 'The ideology of Residential Care and Fostering', www.childrenwebmag.com, vol.
Re-framing Childrens Services - NCVCCO Annual Review Journal, no. 3 (2002), pp. 231-42, viewed
20 August 2011, <http://www.childrenwebmag.com/articles/foster-care/the-ideology-ofresidential-care-and-fostering>.
Who Cares? Scotland 2004, A different class? educational attainment: the views and experiences
of looked after young people, [Who Cares? Scotland], [Glasgow?],
<http://www.nls.uk/scotgov/2004/0023695.pdf
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/26350/0023695.pdf>.
Wilkinson, JEE & O'Hara, GE 1988, Our children : residential and community care, National
Children's Bureau, London.
Williams, H 2006, The Maltese Capuchins and Suret il-Bniedem, Malta, viewed 19/7/2011,
<http://www.mir4malta.org/docs/maltese_capuchins_and_suret_bniedem.pdf>.
World Bank 2006, Ensuring Education Access for Orphans and Vulnerable Children. A Planners'
Handbook, 2nd edn, viewed 10 June 2011,
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/5476641099080042112/ed_HIV_Ensuring_EdAccess.pdf>.
Yin, RK 2009, Case study research : design and methods, 4th ed. edn, SAGE, London.
Zammit McKeon, V 2008, 'Children of an equal God', The Times of Malta, 8 Feb 2008, viewed 25
June 2011, <http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20080208/opinion/children-of-anequal-god.195402>.
2010, 'The family that stays together...', The Times of Malta, 16 Dec 2010, viewed 24 June
2011
<http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101216/opinion/the-family-that-staystogether.341161>.
106
Appendixes
1. Three Snapshots of Children in the System

2. The Legal Framework governing Care Placements
3. Updated list of all places of deprivation of liberty
4. The Financial Cost of Care
5. Errors in the Datasets and in Official Publications
6. Table of Placement Data
7. Participants Information Sheet and Consents Form
8. Interview Guide
9. Survey Questionnaire
107
Appendix 1.
Three Snapshots of Children in the System
Residential
Provision
Childrens Home
Hostel
Homeless Shelter
Mental Health Facility
Domestic Violence
Addiction
Disability
Refugee Home (UMAS)
LAC System
In Care
In Care
FSWS
Nov 2010
CYPAB
Dec 2010
CYPAB
May 2011
183
3
9
11
0
0
2
1
42%
1%
2%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
105
1
4
2
0
1
3
48
37%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
17%
100
2
0
6
1
0
3
37
36%
1%
0%
2%
0%
0%
1%
13%
183
25
1
209
42%
6%
0%
48%
105
11
48
164
37%
4%
17%
57%
100
12
37
149
36%
4%
13%
54%
116
60
1
177
27%
14%
0%
41%
74
11
85
26%
4%
30%
83
12
95
30%
4%
34%
209
177
37
14
48%
41%
8%
3%
164
85
32
5
57%
30%
11%
2%
149
95
26
6
54%
34%
9%
2%
Summarising Residential:
Traditional Mainstream
Specialist
Refugee Home (UMAS)
Total Residential:
Children in
Foster Care
Stranger Foster Care
Next-of-kin Foster Care
Weekend-Fostering
Total Foster Care:
Adding up the figures:

Total Residential
Total Foster Care
Home With Parent/s
Other Arrangements
Total Placements:
437
286
Table 31 Three Snapshots of Residential Provision
108
276
Appendix 2.
The Legal Framework governing Care Placements
Malta ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990 (Govt of Malta
1998) considering it as the basis and yardstick for improvement in the field of childrens rights
(Govt of Malta 2001b).
In 2003, the Commissioner for Children Act (Laws of Malta [Chapter 462] 2003) established an
Authority with powers to promote, investigate and make recommendations in the area of
childrens rights.
Responsibility for the field of social welfare is however vested in the Minister of state responsible
for social policy (Laws of Malta [Chapter 283] 1980). The names of Ministries may change for
organisational reasons but continuity of responsibility is retained. Thus: between 2004 and 2008
social policy was the responsibility of the Ministry for the Family and Social Solidarity (MFSS).
Following that years General Election this was renamed the Ministry for Social Policy (MSP) while
after a cabinet reshuffle in 2010 responsibility for children in out-of-home care was included in
the portfolio of the Ministry for Education, Employment and the Family (MEEF).
The Children and Young Persons (Care Orders) Act of 1980 and its accompanying Regulations are
the most well known parts of the legislation governing children in care (Govt of Malta 2011).
However, placements in out-of-home care are subject to a variety of laws (Table 32):
Table 32 Particularly relevant legislation impacting on Maltese out-of-home care provision
Chapter 491 - Foster Care Act

Chapter 420 - Refugees Act
Chapter 287 - Juvenile Court Act
Chapter 285 - Children and Young Persons (Care Orders) Act
Chapter 16 - Civil Code, Book First, (Of Adoption), Title III, (113 - 130)
S.L. 16.01 - Placing of Minors Regulations
109
State Responsibility for Children Without Parental Care

Article 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations 1989) obliges signatory
states to ensure alternative care provision for children who are temporarily or permanently
deprived of their family environment or have had to be removed from it for their safety (Cantwell
& Holzscheiter 2008). The openness of its provisions requires the concepts within it to be
translated into clear official policies (Cantwell & Holzscheiter 2008: 4). The way Maltese Law
provides for the protection of children without parental care is typified by Legal Notice 13 of
1962 granting power to the Director of Welfare to ensure that such children were well provided
for either in institutional or alternative forms of care (Govt of Malta 1998: 7).
A Statutory Body with an Advisory Capacity

The 1980 Children and Young Persons (Care Orders) Act enabled the Court and the Minister to
issue Care Orders (and Interim Care Orders) to place children under protection in case of danger
or manifest need. As it is, this law enables Maltese authorities to act speedily in the best interests
of the child while legal contestation, which might otherwise delay remedial action, is permitted
at a later stage of the proceedings. This same law vests the Minister with powers as well as duties
resembling those of a good parent, with regard to the care and custody of children in the states
care.
The Children and Young Persons (Care Orders) Regulations, variously updated under this Act,
regulate procedures at the Juvenile Court which was set up for children under the age of 16
years; the workings of the Children and Young Persons Advisory Board (CYPAB); the
administration of homes, hostels and institutions for children and the rights and duties of the
Director of Welfare in this regard (Govt of Malta 1998: 7).
By law, the CYPAB should advise the Minister on the best methods of dealing with every child or
young person committed or taken into his care and to exercise general supervision over such
children or young persons and, in general, to promote their welfare.
110
Appendix 3.
The Updated list of all places of deprivation of liberty
This section has been compiled and reproduced from Annex 1 to the Maltese Governments
reply to the Report published in February 2011 by the European Committee for the Prevention of
Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) pursuant to its visit to Malta
during May 2008, which Reply was received by the CPT on the 3rd July 2009.
Classification of places of deprivation of liberty, including Childrens Homes:
Classification
Short Designation
1.
Boys residential home classified as a residential home for

children under a care order, court order or in voluntary care
Boys home
2.
Childrens home (Mixed) (0-3yrs) classified as a residential

home for children under a care order, court order or in
voluntary care
Childrens home
0-3yrs
3.
Childrens home (Mixed) (3-9yrs) classified as a residential

home for children under a care order, court order or in
voluntary care
Childrens home
3-9yrs
4.
Declared to be a prison for the purposes of the Prisons Act
Prison
5.
Girls residential home classified as a residential home for

children under a care order, court order or in voluntary care
Girls residential home
6.
Listed as a place of detention for the purposes of the

Immigration Act
Immigrant Detention
7.
Declared to be a place of detention for the purposes of the

Criminal Code
Criminal Detention
8.
Residential Placement for Adolescents classified as a

residential home for children under a care order, court order or
in voluntary care
Residential Placement for

Adolescents
9.
Residential Placement for Adolescents classified as a

residential home for children under a care order, court order or
in voluntary care. Such home is primarily for adults who require
a shelter, however it also offers residential care to adolescents
who are either under a care order, court order or are admitted
voluntarily.
Residential Placement for

Adolescents and adult shelter
111
List of Facilities for children under a Care Order / Court Order / Voluntary care
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
St. Patricks
St. Josephs, Hamrun
Ursuline Creche, Sliema
Angela House
Fra Diego
St. Rita
Piccola Casa di San Giuseppe
St. Josephs, Zabbar
Holy Family
St. Theresa
Fejda
St. Jeanne Antide
YMCA
Dar Teresa Spinelli
Boys home
Boys home
Childrens home 0-3yrs
Residential Placement for Adolescents
Residential Placement for Adolescents and adult shelter
Further breakdown of facilities according of the above classification

1.
The Police Headquarters at Floriana
Prison
2.
The lock-up at Paola Police Station
Prison
3.
Prison
4.
St Michael Ward at St Lukes Hospital in

Guardamangia
The former Primary School at Mtahleb
5.
Ward 10 at Mount Carmel Hospital
Prison
Prison
6.
The Centre for inadmissible travellers at the

Malta International Airport
7. The lock up in the building housing the Courts
of Justice at Valletta
8. The lock up at the Police General Headquarters
at Floriana
9. The approved place of Police Custody at the
Victoria Police Station, Gozo
10. The quarters at the Special Assignment Group
Complex, Ta Kandja, limits of Siggiewi
Malta International Airport
12. The approved place at Lyster Barracks, Hal Far
Prison
Immigrant Detention
Prison
Immigrant Detention
Immigrant Detention
Immigrant Detention
Immigrant Detention
Immigrant Detention
13. The Hal Far Immigration Reception Centre
Immigrant Detention
14. The approved place at the Safi Barracks, Safi
Immigrant Detention

Seaport, Valletta
16. The approved place of the Police Complex at
Fort Mosta, Mosta
Immigrant Detention
unused
Immigrant Detention
unused
112
?
Criminal
Detention
Criminal
Detention
Criminal
Detention
Appendix 4.
The Financial Cost of Care
Working out the cost of a six-bedded Childrens Home

The assumptions in working out a roster for a six-bedded Unit that would
serve as a Childrens Home are that:
double cover is always ensured; and that
the Unit Manager is a non-rostered member of staff.
Costings carry Implications
All costs are approximate but they serve to provide an idea of how much it
would cost to run a Unit like this in Malta at this time (2011), and therefore
estimate financial resources, which, of course, have a lot of implications in
policy formulation and service provision.
113
114
jeans
trousers
tops
shorts
light trousers
T-shirts
underwear
pairs socks
jacket
vests
pairs slippers
bed shoes
school shoes
towels
swimming trunks
beach towel
Amounts are per child:
Clothing:
8.00
20.00
22.00
50.00
6.00
10.00
7.00
20.00
7.00
20.00
5.00
25.00
1.00
3.00
5.00
12.00
7.00
10.00
15.00
15.00
Cost per item ()
Food:
1.00 per person
Breakfast
2.50 per person
Lunch
2.75 per person
Dinner
Total 6.25 * 8 persons, i.e. estimated cost of food per day =
Total cost of Clothing per child:
350.00
6.00
10.00
7.00
40.00
7.00
20.00
20.00
25.00
6.00
12.00
25.00
36.00
21.00
40.00
45.00
30.00
Cost per child ()
which works out at:

350.00 per week
Thus, the cost of food for 52 weeks will be:
(Based on 8 residents: minimum of 6 adolescents and 2 adults at any one time, estimated typical costs and wages 2011)
Question: What is the average cost per child per year?
18,200
Sub-Totals
Estimated Expenditure for a 6-bedded Children's Home (2011)
TOTALS
4.00
4 shampoo
Total cost of Toileteries per child:
100.00
100.00
Books, files and copybooks
Others
100.00
(per child per scholastic year)
4,020.00
Total pocket money etc for group:
Total Household expenses:
2,000.00
200.00
800.00
200.00
600.00
600.00
600.00
Total school and related expenses:
for 6 children:
250.00
1,500.00
Total sports and related expenses for the group:
Uniform
School necessities
Sports-related items
Sports, Summer schools and other subscriptions per child, per year
Pocket money, Birthday, Christmas and excursions

5 per week per boy + 25 + 35 + 350 = (260 + 410) * 6 boys =
500.00
50.00
Maintanance and upkeeping of home & equipment
200.00
Computer and Internet
50.00
Cable TV and telephone
400.00
100.00
Cooking materials
Cleaning materials
300.00
200.00
50.00
Squashes
200.00
50.00
75.00
Gas
2,000.00
(Yearly)
500.00
(per Quarter)
Total Clothing & Toileteries for 6 boys:
109.00
459.00
16.00
36.00
Drinking water
Water and Electricity consumption
Household Expenses for the Balzan group
3.00
12 shower gel
48.00
9.00
Cost per child ()
Total cost of Clothing & Toileteries per child:
4.00
3.00
Cost per item ()
12 gel
3 tooth brush / tooth paste
Toileteries (per child per year)
1,800
1,500
4,020
6,300
2,754
5 per child per week * 52 weeks =
Fuel and Parking
Public Transport
Non-school days, at:
48 staff hours per day
44 staff hours per day
= 9,360 staff hours
= 7,480 staff hours
approx.
Bonus @ 512.46 for
A 6-bedded Children's Home -
20,000
Total Wages:
5,125
105,600
Estimated Average Cost per Child(2011):
Estimated Total Running Costs (2011):
Staff Salary Costs = Wages + NI + Bonus:
Employer's N.I. Contributions:
approx.
8.8 FTE Care Workers' salary costs (@ 12,000 each)

10 staff, amounts to
approx.
14650 hours / 8 hours per shift = 1831.25 shifts / 208 shifts a year = 8.8 FTE Care Staff
Non Rostered + occasional staff
Staff Wages
195
Typically:
School days:, at:
Yearly Running Costs (excluding salaries):
Over one year there is a need for 16840 hours - 2190 hours (Night shift adjustment 8 for 11)
170
Typically:
Calculation of Staffing requirement:
500.00
Cash float
Total Miscellaneous expenses:
400.00
Stationery/ ink/ breakages/ cinemas/ outings/ allowances/ car services etc
Medicines
1,000.00
Miscellaneous
Total transport related expenses:
1,560.00
2,600.00
50 per week * 52 =
Transportation costs
30,336
125,600
12,560
1,900
4,160
182,019
143,285
38,734
118
Appendix 5.
Errors in the Datasets and in Official Publications
The CYPAB Datasets

The 73 monthly databases made available for the research by the Children and Young Persons
Advisory Board (CYPAB) were processed and error corrected during the research. The following
are some of the situations encountered during this process:
a) Dates of Birth
i.
Duplicates were first noticed in the aggregate 2005-2006 databases.
ii.
Many duplicates were due to dates being written sometimes in American and at other
times in European notation.
iii.
On occasion there were three different Dates of Birth (DOBs) indicated for the same
person (same parents). When there was doubt and it was difficult to understand which
date of birth was correct, an assumption was made on a best-guess criterion. This did
not usually affect the year in which that child was born and only very marginally affected
the reliability of the dataset.
iv.
Some DOBs were quite obviously wrong and mistakes had to be rectified by recourse to
the paper files. The first few pages of the file would usually have the DOB written on it.
Mistakes seemed to originate from manual transcription errors but were also sometimes
encountered in typed original documentation.
v.
Some DOBs were obviously invalid with a zero given as the day of birth: the cases
encountered related to Unaccompanied Minor Asylum Seekers (UMAS).
b) Date of Issue of Care Order

i.
In three cases, the database indicated that a Care Order was issued on children before
they were even born. In one case the reason appeared to be a practice of preparing Care
Order documentation for children of mothers overwhelmed by drug-addiction problems.
When the birth was estimated to happen at inconvenient times during the early hours of
the morning, it was suggested that the Ministers signature (nearly always necessary for
issuing a Care Order in Malta) was likely sought the evening prior to delivery.
ii.
In one case however, it appeared that the Care Order was issued months prior to
delivery. An examination of the two decades old case file proved inconclusive.
119
c) Difficulties with Names

i.
While testing by parentage and DOB duplicates it was noticed that some names were
spelt differently in different databases but related to the same person. Most difficulties
involved misspelling foreign-sounding names and surnames which included silent letters
(eg h) or unpronounceable vowel sequences (eg ouai).
ii.
Other data missing or messed up included the insertion of extra spaces between a name
and surname, since database software may not recognize a space as being extra, for
instance.
iii.
Two boys shared the same name but different DOBs and parents and so were, in fact,
two different cases.
iv.
Mixing up first and last names was also a source of confusion, especially when there were
three names, each of which could have been a proper name just as well as a surname
(eg. Anthony Francis Vincent). Neither were foreign names easily distinguishable, and it
was not always clear whether spelling a name a little differently (e.g. Muhammad
instead of Mohamed) was a spelling error or if it were to be considered as a different
name, in which case when the rest of the data in the records confirmed that the case was
unique an arbitrary choice was made as to one way of spelling it, so as to identify it as the
one name.
v.
A few children were recorded by a first name only. These were usually foundlings or
children born at sea in one of the tragedies associated with irregular migration in the
Mediterranean. In the course of the years these childrens names were liable to change
as a result of further information coming to light, such as when somebody comes forward
and claims to be related to the childs dead parents. Thus a case record of a baby girl
called Sunrise (invented name) in the March 2005 database could be the same case of
a girl who three years later is found in a database named Manay Soraya and
subsequently as Soraya Manai (invented name). Every occurrence of that childs names
in the data sheets would then be amended accordingly to achieve consistency
throughout the research.
d) Ambiguities regarding Gender

i.
Gender was initially colour-coded into the early CYPAB databases. In the case of nine
children there was no (or no reliable) data. Three of the names were commonly
associated with girls or boys, but not with both, in the Maltese context, and so the
entries were recognised as probable errors and corrected so that the end results of the
research would more accurately reflect reality. The other six were names of UMAS.
120
e) Placement Identifiers
i.
Further data corruption in transcription involved placement names: two facilities

apparently being used by UMAS were not identifiable with any known service in
existence anytime between 2004 and 2011, and the entries were corrected to point to
the nearest equivalent sound-alike. Thus, while Hal Ferh is a (now disused) holiday
complex, no record of a Tent Village being temporarily erected within it or in the vicinity
was found, and this entry was corrected to read Hal Far Tent Village which actually
exists and hosts asylum seekers. Likewise St Joseph Nazareth Home could have equally
indicated any one of four places with variations on that name.
ii.
Difficulties were also encountered in correcting data to better reflect the reality on the
ground when deciphering placement information, with some names frequently being
misspelt or written in Maltese, Italian and English: computers do not realise that Dar
Sagra Familja is equivalent to Holy Family Home for instance. This points to the need
for consistency and standardization of place-names that would result from the
registration of facilities, for instance.
The FSWS Database

It was impossible to complete a proper error-checking procedure in relation to duplicates since
all names and dates of birth had been removed before this database was passed on to me for
research, however a significant number of errors and ambiguities could still be spotted in data
obtained from the Foundation.
a) Organisation of Looked-after Children Data

i.
This file was split into different worksheets, the names of some of which were ambiguous
or misleading.
ii.
The first worksheet entitled Status of Care Orders had a second title on the inside
which said Status of Looked After Children. Not all looked-after children are placed in
residential care on foot of a Care Order, and the two terms are not equivalent.
iii.
Three children were listed in another worksheet entitled Moved from Residential to
Fostering but then in all cases, their Present Address indicated a residential home for
children.
121
iv.
Aftercare is first indicated as Between 18 and 21 still followed by LAC and Fostering.
The data in the worksheet indicated that this in fact applied to 9 people: two of whom
were youths aged 18 and 19. Technically these were not children, but it was specified
that they were both on Voluntary placement and living in Hostels where children are
afforded residential care services.
v.
In the datasheet entitled In Fostercare one of the children is indicated as being

fostered only at weekends. The childs residence during the week was not indicated.
vi.
The Children living at Home or alternative placements datasheet includes ten children
classified as on Voluntary placement mostly living with mother, and it is not clear why
they form part of the out-of-home care cohort, unless they were in aftercare, which
would mean that they would probably be better placed in the Aftercare worksheet.
b) Ages
i.
Looked-after children data included the minors age. Many were listed as being 18, at
which age, technically, they were no longer children.
c) Mistakes in childrens Gender

i.
One residential service caters for boys only, yet two children who apparently live there
are indicated as being female.
ii.
In the Residential 041110 worksheet, a boys age in a particular home was well beyond
the range permitted for boys. Cross referencing that population indicated that even this
was a case of the child mistakenly being assigned a different gender in the Foundations
records.
d) Placement Identifiers
i.
12% of the placement names were typed in a variety of ways or with inconsistent
spellings. However, given the limited number of records it was easier to spot these in the
Foundations database and correct them as necessary.
ii.
In one case the placement was confusingly indicated as [placement name]/Home.

Though such errors created confusion on paper, one would hope that things were clearer
in practice for the child. However, unless records properly reflect reality it would be
difficult to judge the impact of certain situations from this researchs perspective.
122
Noticeable Discrepancies in Official Publications

The figures to follow, in Table 34, result from the research and have been worked out directly
from monthly databases of children under a Care Order, previously indicated. It appears that
there are considerable discrepancies in the figures on Care Orders published by Government in
the past. The findings in the research are supported by the workings now indicated.
Procedure for calculating the numbers of new cases per year from the database
After checking for errors in the spelling of names etc., the method employed was simply to
aggregate the twelve monthly lists of cases, thereafter removing duplicates. This created a list of
unique cases appearing during that year. Table 33 shows an example of the method followed:
a) The number of cases in each month is noted;
b) An aggregate table of childrens names is generated. This includes the whole list of
names for each month combined and contains about 2400 names;
c) The Excel Remove Duplicates function is invoked on the list;
d) The result is a list of all the unique names that were present in all the (usually) monthly
databases issued by the CYPAB for that year;
e) Quick check: the number of names in the unique-names list should not be less than the
highest number of names in each monthly list of that year.
f)
The unique-names lists for succeeding years are combined in succession;
g) After each combination, duplicates are removed once again;

h) The result is the list of unique names in the years that were combined;
i)
Subtraction indicates the number of new cases of Full Care Orders recorded by the
CYPAB in a year. [Note: Interim Care Orders are not usually handled at all by the CYPAB.]
Table 33 Care Orders 2006 2007: Procedure for calculating the number of new cases
Care Orders
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Cases 2006
186
197
195
191
191
187
192
194
210
207
207
212
Cases 2007
223
217
221
217
210
204
200
224
224
222
218
217
List of Unique Names:
Subtracting:
2006:
262
unique names (A)
2007:
271
unique names (B)
2006 + 2007:
327
unique names (C)
= 65
new cases in 2007
(C) (A) = 327 - 262
123
Further problematic data
In September 1998 Malta submitted a Report to the United Nations in relation to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (Govt of Malta 1998). Paragraph 183 of this Report
indicated that 50 Care Orders were issued in the period 1987-1995. The figures and their
breakdown do not add up.
In 2002, the NSO published a book detailing the situation of children in Malta (Govt of Malta
2002) and in 2010 it came up with a similar publication (Govt of Malta 2010). Both present a
breakdown of Care Orders issued 1995-2001 and 1990-2008 respectively, thus overlapping.
In none of these three reports/publications do the numbers match and there is a bigger
discrepancy when their figures are compared to those produced by this research. The CYPAB
itself indicates the number of new cases in its annual report, and while its estimates did not
match the researchs, yet they are closer to reality than any other government statistics.
Nevertheless, this research can flag problems regarding published statistics but the reasons
for any discrepancies would need to be explored in further depth.
Table 34 Issues of reliability with respect to official Care Order statistics
NEW CARE
ORDERS
ISSUED
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
UN CRC, 1998
State Party
Report
2
1
1
4
23
13
19
5
11
8
Children
(NSO 2002)
Children 2010
(NSO 2010)
1
3
7
8
5
4
10
8
15
18
7
15
17
20
28
29
36
17
4
9
9
16
19
8
12
124
CYPAB
Annual
Reports
64
67
81
Research
Data
(new cases)
49
83
65
84
78
58
Appendix 6.
Table of Placement Data and Children's Residential

Facilities
In recent months and presently, it was possible to find children without parental care living in a
minimum of 47 Services: i.e. in 12 Childrens Homes; 3 Adult and Adolescent Hostels; 2 Homeless
Shelters; 3 Shelters for Victims of Domestic Violence; 7 Addiction Services; 5 facilities catering for
the Elderly and/or Disabled; 2 facilities for Asylum Seekers; 2 Detention services and 1 Aftercare
Hostel catering exclusively for ex-prisoners; 1 Boarding School and, if one were to exclude all the
General Adult and Psychiatric Wards of the Malta and Gozo General Hospitals that also
accommodate children: in 4 other Medical Wards and in 5 Mental Health Facilities; as well as in a
number of Religious Communities spread around the islands.
The Table on the next three pages provides a summary of the official placement records of
children who were looked-after, whether they were in residential care, foster care, living with
relatives or in other arrangements. An explanation of the various headings/symbols follows:
1. FSWS snapshot data (Nov 2010): This includes all children looked-after by the FSWS. In so
doing it leaves out certain groups of children living in residential care, some under a Care
Order, since the FSWS does not follow them.
2. No. Plc: The number of children placed or accommodated in the facility to which it refers.
3. CYPAB snapshot data Dec 2010: Only children under a Care Order which appeared in the
database released by the CYPAB in December 2010.
4. CYPAB snapshot data May 2011: The latest of the 73 CYPAB monthly databases made
available for this research.
5. Where Minors under Care Order were placed 2005-2011 (CYPAB): Combined CYPAB records.
6. Residential Services accepting children without parental care encountered in the
Research: A complete list of facilities encountered during the research, either for having
provided a placement which was registered in the databases or else because during the
survey the service claimed to offer residential services to minors on an ongoing basis.
7. The symbol:
indicates a facility that has closed down or else one that, as a matter of
current policy, is not now hosting children without parental care.

125
Childrens
Home
Hostel
Homeless
Shelter
Mental
Health
DV Shelter
FSWS snapshot data

(all looked-after children)
Nov 2010
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
St. Jeanne Antide
St. Joseph (Hamrun)
St. Joseph (Zabbar)
St. Patrick's
St. Rita
St. Theresa
Ursuline Creche
Dar Gilji Bojod
Dar Frate Jacoba
Fatima House
No.
Plc
44
6
13
10
6
13
14
7
23
11
6
20
1
CYPAB snapshot data

(Care Orders only)
Dec 2010
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
St Jeanne Antide
St Josephs (Hamrun)
St Josephs (Zabbar)
St Patrick's Home
St Rita Home
St Therese Home
Ursuline Creche
Dar Gilji Bojod
No.
Plc
26
4
12
5
1
6
7
6
15
4
2
12
1
1
2
Dar Leopoldo
Dar Teresa Spinelli
YMCA Minors
5
1
3
KIDs
Mt Carmel H. Adult Wards
Programm Fejda
Young Peoples Unit
8
1
9
2
Osanna Pia
YMCA Minors
KIDs
Programm Fejda
CYPAB snapshot data

(Care Orders only)
May 2011
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
St Jeanne Antide
St Josephs (Hamrun)
St Josephs (Zabbar)
St Patrick's Home
St Rita Home
St Therese Home
Ursuline Creche
Dar Frate Jacoba

Fatima House
1
1
KIDs
Programm Fejda
Young Peoples Unit
Villa Chelsea
3
1
6
1
1
Where Minors under Care

Order were placed
2005-2011 (CYPAB)
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
St Jeanne Antide
St Josephs (Hamrun)
St Josephs (Zabbar)
St Patrick's Home
St Rita Home
St Therese Home
Ursuline Creche
Dar Gilji Bojod
Lourdes Home
Dar Frate Jacoba
Fatima House
Osanna Pia
Dar Leopoldo
Dar Teresa Spinelli
YMCA Minors
YMCA - Adults (Dar Niki C.)
KIDs
Programm Fejda
Young Peoples Unit
Villa Chelsea
Ghabex
Ghabex
126
No.
Plc
26
4
11
5
1
6
6
8
15
4
2
6
Residential Services accepting

children without parental care
encountered in the Research
Angela House
Don Bosco House
Fra Diego
Holy Family
Piccola Casa
St Jeanne Antide
St Josephs (Hamrun)
St Josephs (Zabbar)
St Patricks
St Rita
St Theresa
Ursuline Creche
Dar Gilji Bojod
Lourdes Home
Dar Frate Jacoba
Fatima House
Osanna Pia
Dar Leopoldo
Dar Teresa Spinelli
YMCA Minors
YMCA - Adults (Dar Niki Cassar)
KIDs
MCH Adult Wards: (six wards)
Programm Fejda
Young Peoples Unit
Villa Chelsea
Psychiatric Unit (Gozo Hosp.)
Psychiatric Unit (Malta Hosp.)
Sapport (Vajrita 1 & 2, Mtarfa)
Ghabex
Merhba Bik
Gozo Crisis Intervention Centre
FSWS snapshot data

Nov 2010
No.
Plc
Addiction
CYPAB snapshot data

(Care Orders only)
Dec 2010
Dar il-Vittorja
No.
Plc
CYPAB snapshot data

(Care Orders only)
May 2011
No.
Plc
Disability
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
1
1
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar Nazareth
1
1
1
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar Nazareth
1
1
1
Refugees
(UMAS)
Dar il-Qawsalla
Dar il-Qawsalla
Dar il-Liedna
Dar is-Sliem
1
15
32
Dar il-Liedna
Dar is-Sliem
8
29

Order were placed
2005-2011 (CYPAB)
Dar il-Vittorja
Komunita Santa Maria
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar Nazareth
Dar il-Qawsalla
Dar il-Liedna
Dar is-Sliem
Lyster Barracks
Open Centre
Police GHQ
Safi Barracks
Medical
Detention
Corradino Prisons

Dar il-Vittorja
Komunita' Santa Maria
Dar l-Impenn
OASI Halfway House
OASI Residential Community
San Blas Harm Reduction Shelter
San Blas Therapeutic Community
Dar l-Arka
Dar tal-Providenza
Dar Nazareth
Dar il-Kaptan
Dar il-Madonna tal-Mellieha
Dar il-Qawsalla
Dar il-Liedna
Dar is-Sliem
Lyster Barracks
Open Centre
Police GHQ
Safi Barracks
General Wards (Gozo H.)
General Wards (Malta H.)
Neonatal Paediatric ICU (Malta H.)
Paediatric Ward (Gozo H.)
Paediatric Wards (Malta H.)
Rainbow Wd (Malta H.)
Corradino Prisons
YOURS (Males)
YOURS 2 (Females temp. section)
MDD Ex-Prisoners Aftercare Shelter
127
FSWS snapshot data

Nov 2010
Religious
Boarding
Total
Total Residential (FSWS):
No.
Plc
CYPAB snapshot data

(Care Orders only)
Dec 2010
209
No.
Plc
CYPAB snapshot data

(Care Orders only)
May 2011
164
No.
Plc

Order were placed
2005-2011 (CYPAB)

Certain Religious Communities
St Edwards College (Boys, Girls)
149
Kind of family-based or other

arrangements encountered
FOSTER
CARE
'AT HOME
Totals
Next of Kin Foster Care
60
11
12
Fostered
Fostered (Weekends Only)
Total Fostered:
116
1
177
Fostered
74
Fostered
83
Fostered
Fostered
Fostered (Weekends Only)

Extended Family
With family friends
Living with friends
Total At Home/Other
37
8
1
1
1
1
1
1

Extended Family
With prosp. adopters

Extended Family

With relatives
With family friends
Living with friends
Prospective Foster Care
Social Contact Family
With carer
Children looked-after
Nov 2010:
85
32
4
1
95
Extended family
Living with a Friend

Independent Living

51
437
26
4
1
37
Children in care
Dec 2010:
286
1
32
Children in care
May 2011:
128
276
Prospective Foster Care

With carer
Appendix 7.
Participants' Information Sheet and Consents Form
[ on next page ]
129
130
University of Dublin, Trinity College

School of Social Work and Social Policy
Research Project
A Pilot Study Exploring the Maltese Child Care

System from the perspective of
Placement Patterns and Outcomes
Information Sheet for Participants
Antoine Farrugia
March 2011
131
1) This is a study that I am doing between January and May 2011. It is about
the experience of children in care, and I will be taking a closer look at those
boys who had been removed from their families by means of a Care Order at
the end of 2004. I am interested in painting a general picture of some
placement characteristics of these young people, the process by which they
came into care and the outcome of their placement, to see how their situation
changed over the years. By reflecting on their experience and documenting
common trends I hope to shed light on the situations that boys like these
encounter during their time in care and when they leave, the good things that
come their way as well as the difficulties they may encounter irrespective of
their different personalities and backgrounds. An awareness of patterns in
these matters could help those who plan and provide services for these
young peoples benefit to be more in tune with the young peoples general
needs and situations.
2) This research is the last part of my studies at the University of Dublin,
known as Trinity College, in Ireland. You may remember that I used to work
within Salesian services, at St Patricks and Don Bosco House, but since the
summer of 2009 I left to continue studying, so I am not directly involved in
direct service provision anymore at the moment though I am still interested
in the work we do with young people in care in Malta. I still lend a hand at
the Department of Social Welfare Standards, which keeps me involved in
this area but in a different way from before.
3) You have received this Information Booklet...:
a) either because I wish to have your consent to access data of statistical
value which you may have, or maybe for permission to do research in
services or with staff or about children for whom you hold some degree
of responsibility and I would thus like you to know what I am hoping to
do and how I am planning to do it;
b) or else because I would like to interview you with a view to gathering
information about the placement history and case characteristics of the
kind of boys I am looking at in more detail. The information you could
give me will be anonymised to the extent that I do not even need to know
who we would be talking about, in reality and even if I did, no
identifiable details would be made public. I would also like you to know
that before approaching front-line staff I intend obtaining their line
managers permission. Lastly, I just want to say that I appreciate your
voluntary participation and neither you nor anyone else will be penalised
in any way by opting in or opting out.
132
4) Whichever the case may be, with your help I would hope we can increase
the state of knowledge of the lives of the young people we work with in
order to illuminate service planning and provision for others like them.
5) Depending on your role, my estimate is that your involvement in this
research will probably be in the region of up to one hour between January
April 2011.
6) Provided we remain within the boundaries of confidentiality agreed upon
and act within normal ethical principles, I do not anticipate neither any
major risks nor any major benefits for those participating in this study,
however when we meet we could discuss any thoughts or questions you may
have regarding your, or anybody elses, participation.
7) There are some formal requirements to my study, like keeping records of
everything I do. So I will ask you to sign a Consents Form that I will prepare
beforehand and that we will discuss when we meet. It will indicate that you
understand what this research is about, how you will be participating, and
that you agree voluntarily to help with my research after considering for
some time the proposal that will be made to you.
8) Should you be one of those people I wish to interview I would also ask you
if it is ok to record our conversation to help me remember what we
discussed. Participant details will not be revealed in order to preserve
confidentiality. The recordings will be retained on encrypted media for two
years and then destroyed, which ensure that data processing is secure and
fully compliant with Data Protection legislation. When we meet we would
also agree on what confidentiality will mean in the context of our
interaction, with whom I can share what I learn from you and how we can
ensure that you will be reasonably happy about what you tell me.
9) At the end of an interview which will take less than an hour, there will be
some time for the person who was being interviewed to ask questions
themselves.
10) While some people who are interviewed may wish to have what they say
attributed to them, I cannot do this in this study, as I have undertaken to
anonymise the information at hand, and this would include the findings and
interviews during the analysis, and in the publication and presentation of the
data and resulting findings afterwards.
133
11) Your participation is highly valued so a lot of thought has gone into creating
a context of safety and confidentiality for this research because this helps the
real picture to emerge, which is the whole point of research! There is one
last standard safety precaution that you should know about: sometimes
something crops up for people during a social interview and they can feel a
bit upset later, so I will give you the names and office telephone numbers of
two psychotherapists who are supporting my research: Audrey Agius
(21315012) and Paul Formosa (21331447). You could pick one and call
them for an appointment to talk things over if anything should crop up for
you this is something we do in order to construct a safety net around social
interviewing.
12) One last thing: when I conclude my studies and return to Malta I would have
the finished research handy, should you wish to see it. I am very
appreciative of your time and availability, since without your help I could
not carry out this research.
13) You can keep this information sheet to remind you of all this.
Thank you for your time.
Antoine Farrugia sdb

Tel.: 21827323 / 99892278
Email: farrugia@tcd.ie
134
University of Dublin, Trinity College School of Social Work and Social Policy
A Pilot Study Exploring the Maltese Child Care System from the
perspective of Placement Patterns and Outcomes
Participants Consents Form
Tick either Yes or No for each statement below, as appropriate
Yes
I freely want to participate in this research and understand what the study is
about, the nature of my participation and what I am consenting to, as indicated in
the Information Sheet for Professionals.
I agree to be interviewed for this study
I am appropriately authorized to share information with the researcher
I agree to my interview being recorded by digital means
I have discussed the confidential nature of our relationship in this research
I am aware of the procedures that we agreed to follow should I wish not to
answer, or even later to retract, a part or the whole of the interview
I agree to the reuse of the research and partial transcripts of my interview in any
possible subsequent publications
I am aware of the contact details of two people who will listen to me if I should
feel the need to talk about something that arose for me during the interview
I declare that I have read the Information Sheet for Professionals and discussed it
with the researcher and agree to the rest of the details therein indicated
Signed: ____________________________
Date:
____________________________
Name in Capitals: ___________________________
[ Researcher:
____________________________ ]
Antoine Farrugia
135
No
136
Appendix 8.
Interview Guide
TO INTERVIEW PROFESSIONALS
Start with 2004-list Boys still living in RESIDENTIAL Care at the end Dec 2010
Let interviewees take the interview where they want, towards the end.
0. Can you tell me something about yourself? (warming up)
1. Is placement stable or tense?
2. What criteria would you use to test for in/stability? i.e. long-term prospects?
3. Was an assessment carried out before admission, or in the first 3 mts of placement?
4. If so, what was assessed in effect?
5. How did this boy's care career start?
6. What were the recurrent patterns so far in his placement, if any?
7. Is placement approaching breakdown, fragile, or stable?
8. How long has child been in current placement?
9. How much longer is the boy likely to remain in this placement?
10. Where is the boy likely to go when he leaves this placement?
11. What would you change in the system if you had a million Euros?
137
Appendix 9.
Survey Questionnaire
As detailed in Chapter 4, a survey template was designed to receive the following information as
well as contact details of the person answering the survey, plus a note of the date this
information was provided. The questions included requested the following information from the
participants:
i.
Whether the service had provided overnight placement to any child without parental
care during 2010 or 2011;
ii.
The name of the service;
iii.
The length of time the service had been running;
iv.
The maximum nominal duration of placements and the maximum duration in practice;
v.
The reasons for any exceptions;
vi.
The age groups of the minors accommodated;
vii.
The minimum and maximum ages on admission;
viii.
The gender/s of the residents;
ix.
Whether they could accommodate any parent/s at the same time as the child;
x.
A brief description of the service;
xi.
Whether the service is affiliated to some particular parent organisation.
[ Maltese original follows ]
138
Lghantadanilkwestjonarjuqasirhulinigborinformazzjonitafejnjghadduparti
minnhajjithomtfaluzghazaghmetamajkunuxqedjghixumalfamiljataghhom.
1. Fdinissena2011jewfissenalighaddietintom,bhalaorganizzazzjoni,zammejtutfaljew
zghazaghlighadhommaghalquxit18ilsena,jghixuujorqduIMQARGHALLEJLWIEHEDfxi
dar/servizzlitmexxu?
Iva
JEW
Le
2. Xjismuisservizzresidenzjali/dartaghkom?(Jekkhemmiktarminnwiehedsemmihomkollha)
Ezempju:St.RitaHome,ProgrammFejda,VillaChelsea,YOURS.
Servizz1:(name)
Ilu04/59/10+yearslibedajiffunzjona(deletethosethatdonotapply.)
MaximumDurationinpractice(jekktaf,liktartullixihadddamjghixhawnhekk,fdawnlahharsnin):
HowmanyUnits/FlatsarethereinthisService/Home:
Servizz2:
Ilu04/59/10+yearslibedajiffunzjona.
MaximumDurationinpractice:
Servizz3:
Servizz4:
3. Xetajietkellhomittfaluzghazaghlighexughalxizmienfisservizz/ilisemmejtfuq?
(Immarkabximodilkaxxilijghoddughaldakisservizzjewghaldikiddar)
0sa5years
6sa10years
11sa15years
16jew17years
18yearsjewiktar
Lizgharlitaccettaw:
Likbarlitaccettaw:
Dar/Servizz1
Dar/Servizz2
Dar/Servizz3
Dar/Servizz4
4. TaLiemasesskienu?(Immarkakaxxawahdaghalkullservizzplease)
Dar/Servizz1
Dar/Servizz2
Dar/Servizz3
Dar/Servizz4
SubienuBniet
Subienbiss
Bnietbiss
5. Xikemmtfaluzghazaghtahtit18ilsenajirrisjeduhemmek?
(Imlazzewgkaxxiplease)
Dar/Servizz1
Dar/Servizz2
Dar/Servizz3
Dar/Servizz4
Matulilgimgha
Filweekends
6. Jistaxihaddmillgenituritadawnittfaluzghazaghjghixmaghhomfdanisservizz/dar?
(Aghzel)
Dar/Servizz1
Dar/Servizz2
Dar/Servizz3
Dar/Servizz4
Iva
Le
7. Kiftistatiddeskrivisservizz/itaghkomfiftitkliem?
Ez.1:Darghaltfaluzghazaghlighandhombzonnambjentfamiljarifejnjghixughaltultazmien.
Ez.2:AProgrammewhichoffersshelterandatherapeuticservicetoalladolescentgirlssufferingfromemotional
andbehaviouraldifficulties.
Ez.3:Aresidentialcommunitybasedprogrammeandrespitecareforpersonswithmentalhealthproblems
Dar/Servizz1
Dar/Servizz2
Dar/Servizz3
Dar/Servizz4
8. IntomtiffurmawpartiminnxiOrganizzazzjonilihijaresponsabblighaldecizjonijietkbarfejn
jidholisservizztaghkom,bhalperezempjufuqmuvimenttastaff,accountability,fondi,
ftuh/gheluqtasservizz?
SalezjanitaDonBosco
EjjewGhandi
YMCA
FSWS(Sedqa,Appogg,Sapport)
Independent:(pleasetickandspecifybelow)
Other:(pleasetickandspecifybelow)
ConservatorioVincenzoBugeja
RichmondFoundation
FondazzjoniSuretilBniedem
AWAS
TalGvern(pleasetickandspecify)
____________________________________________________
9. YournameincaseIneedtocontactyou,please:
10. YourEmail:
Grazzihafnatalhinulghajnunatieghek!AntoineFarrugiasdbTel.21827323Email:farrugia@tcd.ie

Antoine Farrugia SDB MSC (Child Protection and Welfare) 2011

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Antoine Farrugia SDB MSC (Child Protection and Welfare) 2011

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN

CHILDREN OF THE STATE

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment

Operational Programme II Cohesion Policy 2007-2013

Painting a picture of Maltas Residential Child Care System .................................... 1

State Responsibility for Childrens Welfare in a Changing World ..................................... 1

A Renewed Focus on Residential Care Provision for Children .......................................... 3

Framing the Picture ........................................................................................................... 4

Exploring the Maltese Care System ................................................................................ 4

Rediscovering the Child in Care Population ............................................................ 5

Charting the Territory of Residential Provision......................................................... 5

Impact of the Care System on the Young Peoples Lives .......................................... 6

Chapter Conclusion: a Canvas and a Strategy ................................................................... 6

Residential Provision for Vulnerable Children: a Review of the Literature .............. 7

Children in Residential Care: difficult yet vulnerable........................................................ 7

State obligations in respect of residential care provision ................................................. 8

Functions and guiding principles of Residential Care ....................................................... 9

A model approximating to natural-family care ............................................................... 10

A therapeutic and purposeful system ............................................................................. 11

Implications and effects of placing children in residential care...................................... 12

Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 14

The Context of Residential Provision for Children in Malta .................................... 15

Historical Background ..................................................................................................... 15

Children and Residential Care Services in Malta............................................................. 16

Services accepting children without parental care...................................................... 17

Timeline: Services accepting Children Without Parental Care .................................... 19

Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 21

A Process of Exploration ......................................................................................... 23

Designing the Research ................................................................................................... 23

Phase One: Processing the Placement Data .......................................................... 26

Phase Two: The Interview Process .......................................................................... 30

Ethical Concerns .............................................................................................................. 35

Conducting the Research ................................................................................................ 38

The Children who Inhabit the Care System ............................................................. 43

Childrens residential placements in Malta (2000 2010).............................................. 43

Care Orders issued on minors at risk (2004 2010) ....................................................... 45

Painting by Numbers: Children in Out-of-Home Care ..................................................... 46

Children in care: the CYPAB placement databases ............................................... 48

Children in Residential Care ............................................................................................ 50

Numbers and Ages of all children in Residential Care............................................. 50

Numbers and Ages of Children in care .................................................................. 52

Length of Time in Care................................................................................................... 54

Entering Residential Care: the chances of a long-term ticket ......................................... 54

Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 56

Where are the Children? ......................................................................................... 57

Changes in Residential Facilities admitting children from 2000 to 2011 ........................ 57

Categorising Residential Provision .................................................................................. 60

State classification of residential facilities....................................................................... 63

The Organisation of the Residential Care System ........................................................... 64

Placement Patterns in the Residential Care System ....................................................... 66

End of the line: Children in the states psychiatric facilities............................................ 67

The Invisible Children within the Care System ................................................................ 68

Invisibility by Exclusion from the Care System? .............................................................. 69

One System or Three? ..................................................................................................... 70

The Maltese Residential Child Care System in graphical depiction................................. 72

Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 74

Challenging the status quo .............................................................................................. 75

Recent Documents Influencing Official Policy ................................................................. 77

Themes Emerging from Policy Reports ........................................................................... 78

The Looked-After Children Review and the FSWS Operations Report............................ 79

Between Ideals and Reality: the Professionals views..................................................... 81

Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 87