Child Welfare Edition 2026 – Beneficiaries, measures and associated departmental expenditures

📜🔗LINK to the source

1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

A continuous increase in care provisions, driven by reception measures and unaccompanied minors

By the end of 2024, 392,600 minors and young adults will benefit from at least one child welfare measure, representing 2.4% of those under 21, an increase of 1.5% year on year (p. 7). The growth has been driven since 2015 by the surge in placements for unaccompanied minors and then for young adults formerly classified as unaccompanied minors (p. 19-21), as well as by the effects of the law of 7 February 2022 which made support for 18-21 year olds mandatory (p. 3-4). Territorial disparities remain considerable: the proportion of beneficiaries varies from less than 1.9% to over 4% depending on the departments (p. 9).

A usable numerical overview for local management

The report provides precise benchmarks to situate a departmental policy: average cost of a placement (€42,400/year, p. 31), proportion of children with disabilities according to the type of placement (23% in foster care, 15% in institutions, p. 29), occupancy rates of institutions (93%, p. 36) and staffing ratios by type of structure (p. 36). These data, cross-referenced with departmental maps, allow for objective requests for resources or the identification of organisational leeway.

2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1. The number of child welfare measures reaches 405,500 by the end of 2024 (+1.6% year on year), for a total departmental expenditure of €11.7 billion, of which 80% is dedicated to reception measures (p. 7, 12).
2. The proportion of children placed in child welfare who are hosted by a foster carer continues to decline: 35% by the end of 2024 compared to 56% in 2006, in favour of institutions (40%) which have become the main mode of care for the third consecutive year (p. 26).
3. The legal status of home educational placement (PEAD) was called into question by two decisions of the Court of Cassation in 2024 (opinion of 14 February, ruling of 2 October), reclassifying it as a measure of enhanced AEMO rather than placement — a change in doctrine that directly impacts the organisation of services (p. 5-6, 19-20).
4. Nearly a quarter of children placed in foster care (23%) and 15% of those housed in institutions have administrative recognition of disability from the MDPH, compared to only 4% of children aged 5 to 20 in the general population (p. 29).
5. Departmental disparities are marked across all indicators: the share of home educational assistance among educational actions varies from 5% (Lot-et-Garonne) to 55% (Loiret, Deux-Sèvres, Rhône) [p. 16], and the average annual cost of care per beneficiary ranges from 23,000 to 80,500 euros depending on the departments (p. 32).

3. ACTION POINTS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

1. Use maps 1, 4, and 6 (p. 9, 22, 32) to position your department in relation to the national median and to substantiate, in local governance bodies, a request for adjustment of resources or staff.
2. Anticipate the transformation of home educational placement systems into enhanced AEMO or with accommodation, as some services have already initiated this shift as early as January 2026 (p. 20, note 30); check the impact on active caseloads and service organisational charts.
3. Mobilise data on disability (p. 29) to engage with the MDPH and ARS regarding the adequacy of the medico-social offer to the needs of entrusted children, particularly in institutions where the rate of disability recognition has increased from 28% to 35% in four years in living environments.
4. Rely on the length of stay data by type of establishment (table 3, p. 37) to refine establishment projects and better guide young people according to the expected timing of their care (children's home for emergencies, MECS or living places for longer support).
5. Use data on the outcomes of young people leaving establishments (p. 39-40) — 38% return to a relative, 27% continue in ASE establishments — to strengthen the anticipation of exits and preparation for autonomy, in connection with the work of the HAS on this subject (see additional references).

Identified unmet need: the document itself points out the fragility of data on home help, financial aid, and day care (box 3, p. 7-8), which remain estimated by ranges due to a lack of uniform feedback — a focus area for the services that contribute to these surveys.

4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Pratiques en Santé" on the theme of child protection ➡️🔗https://www.pratiquesensante.com/protection-enfance

1. ONPE, Child protection and abuse: state of play 2025 (Gaëlle Guibert, Milan Momić, November 2025) — First report systematically crossing Drees data, Justice, and victimisation surveys; usefully complements the Drees file by shedding light on intra-family abuse.
   https://onpe.france-enfance-protegee.fr/document/protection-de-lenfance-et-maltraitances-etat-des-lieux-2025/
2. HAS, Coordination between child protection and child and adolescent psychiatry (recommendations, April 2025) — Practical tools and legal benchmarks to secure the mental health care pathway of protected children, a subject not addressed by the Drees statistical file.
   https://www.has-sante.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/2025-05/coordination_entre_protection_de_lenfance_et_psychiatrie_de_lenfant_et_de_ladolescent_recommandations.pdf
3. Court of Auditors, Annual Public Report 2025 — chapter on the care of young adults leaving the ASE (March 2025) — Qualitative analysis and recommendations on 'dry' exits, directly complementing the statistical data on APJM presented in the file (p. 19-20).
   https://www.lagazettedescommunes.com/976095/des-sorties-de-la-protection-de-lenfance-encore-trop-seches-selon-la-cour-des-comptes/

5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1. How many young people benefit from an ASE measure in France today?
   392,600 minors and young adults as of 31 December 2024, representing 2.4% of those under 21 (p. 7).
2. What is the difference between an AED and an AEMO?
   The AED (home educational assistance) is an administrative measure, decided with the agreement of the parents. The AEMO (educational action in an open environment) is ordered by the children's judge and is binding for the family (p. 4, 15).
3. Does home educational placement still exist?
   Its status was reclassified by the Court of Cassation in 2024: it is no longer considered a placement but as a reinforced AEMO with possible accommodation. The offer of PEAD is gradually being transformed into educational action systems (p. 5-6, 19-20).
4. What is the average cost of care at the ASE according to the mode of care?
   In 2024, the average annual expenditure is €36,900 in foster care compared to €45,000 for other modes of care (notably institutions) [p. 30].
5. What proportion of children entrusted to the ASE has a recognised disability?
   23% in foster care and 15% in institutions, compared to 4% of children of the same age in the general population (p. 29).
6. How is the care of unaccompanied minors (MNA) evolving?
   After a strong increase until 2023 (+32%), the number of unaccompanied minors decreases in 2024 (-2.6%), while the number of young adults formerly unaccompanied minors increases (+8.9%), reflecting a decrease in recent migration flows (p. 20-21).
7. What territorial disparities should be known to situate one's department?
   The proportion of beneficiaries of an ASE measure varies from less than 1.9% to more than 4% of those under 21 depending on the departments, with particularly high rates in Cantal, Meuse, Creuse, and Nièvre (map 1, p. 9).

6. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

Child social assistance in France: what you need to know

What is child social assistance?

Child social assistance is also called ASE.

It is a service of the department.

It helps children who are in danger.

It also helps their families.

How many children are helped?

At the end of 2024, 392,600 young people are helped by ASE.

This is a little more than in 2023.

This means 2.4 children out of 100 among young people under 21.

What are the two forms of assistance?

There are two main forms of assistance.

• Home assistance: an educator comes to help the family at home.
• Care elsewhere: the child will live in another family or in an establishment.

How much money is spent?

In 2024, the departments spent 11.7 billion euros.

The largest part of this money is used to pay for the care of children.

Where do the cared-for children live?

Previously, many children lived with a foster family.

Today, the majority live in an institution.

This concerns 40 children out of 100.

35 children out of 100 live in foster care.

Are the same rules applied everywhere in France?

No. The departments do not all do the same.

The number of supported children varies greatly from one department to another.

The money spent also varies greatly.

7. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

• Literacy : The document is a technical statistical report, without an integrated dissemination device; it does not provide tools suitable for non-expert audiences, including for the young people concerned themselves.
• Empowerment : The file does not document any mechanism for direct participation of children or young adults in the production or use of the data presented.
• Participation : No co-construction mechanism with the beneficiaries is mentioned; the report relies exclusively on administrative data reported by the departmental councils.
• Community health : The collective dimension appears through territorial analysis (departmental maps) but remains focused on institutional management rather than a community approach to prevention.
• Ethics : The document explicitly identifies methodological biases (double counting, heterogeneity of departmental feedback, box 4 p. 10) and addresses them with rigor and transparency.
• Human rights : The attention given to unaccompanied minors, children with disabilities, and 'dry' exits from child welfare services reflects a concern for equity, without however developing a dedicated analysis of children's rights.
• Intersectorality : The report articulates the data from child welfare services with that of the Justice system (DPJJ), the National Education (DEPP), and the medico-social sector (MDPH, ES-Handicap), illustrating an intersectoral approach to the data.
• Partnership : No model of collaboration between departments, accredited associations, and judicial institutions is formalised in this statistical report; the subject is addressed in other cited publications (notably the Court of Auditors).
• Combating discrimination : The document highlights disparities in territorial and gender treatment (overrepresentation of boys in care, p. 24) but does not analyse them from the perspective of non-discrimination or equity of treatment.

8. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Scientific relevance : Institutional reference source (Drees), methodology explained in the annex (social assistance survey, ES-PE survey, Olinpe system), current data (31 December 2024). The methodological limitations are explicitly acknowledged (box 3 on the difficult counting of certain home aids, box 4 on the correction of double counting). Point of caution: some structural data (ES-PE, ES-Handicap, family assistant survey) date from 2021-2022, with the next collection scheduled for 2027.

Operational relevance : Directly usable by managers and service heads for departmental benchmarking thanks to the maps and comparative tables. Less directly mobilisable for field professionals in direct contact with children, the document remaining statistical in nature and not practical (no protocol, no individual assessment tool).