Search results

Institutionalisation of the life course - what does it explain?

There has been an ongoing debate about the characteristic features of the modern life course. Some claim that the life course have become more predictable and institutionalised while others indicate the emergence of a post modern or deconstructed life course. By the means of the analytical distinction between two different types of live events - culturally prescribed transitions and occasional incidents I will scrutinise the hypnotises of the institutionalisation of the life course. The institutionalised life course is a new historical phenomena and only possible under certain demographic and social conditions. Of specific importance is the emergence of the welfare state. The data I base my analysis upon are life history interviews with 97 men and women born before the First World War. This generation is interesting in this respect because they grew up and became old under different welfare regimes.

In Norway, tracing the parents or caregivers of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers is politically anchored in chapter 8 of Stortingsmelding no. 17 (2000-2001) from (KRD 2001). The then sharp increase in the numbers of UMAs arriving in Norway, along with an understanding of UMAs as particularly vulnerable formed the point of departure when the Directorate of Immigration started a project aimed at developing efficient methods for the tracing of parents or caregivers of unaccompanied minor asylum seekers. In July 2006, the Directorate decided to discontinue this project. Instead, a comparative study of different European countries' practices and experiences in tracing the parents or other caregivers of separated minor asylum seeker was initiated. Norwegian Social Research (NOVA) was commissioned to conduct the project in September. The term «unaccompanied minor asylum seekers» (UMAs) in this report refers to children under the age of 18 who are separated from either parents or other legal or customary caregivers, and who apply for asylum in a foreign country. Our decision to make use of this relatively broad definition is based on the need to include all the different national definitions comprised by the present study. Four per cent of the total numers of asylum applications From 2000-2003, approximately 13,000 UMAs applied for asylum in Europe (France and Italy not included, due to lack of comparable data). At the time, the number of new asylum seekers and the proportion of UMAs among them were already in decline. UMAs lodged approximately 4% of the total number of asylum applications in Europe in 2003. There were significant differences between the European countries. The Netherlands and the United Kingdom each registered approximately 25% of all asylum claims from UMAs in this period. There was a wide variety of countries of origin of the registered UMAs. While Finland registered Somalia as the country of origin for 29% and Afghanistan as the country of origin for 2% of all UMAs, in Hungary the picture was very different: 66% of all UMAs in Hungary were registered as originating in Afghanistan, and only 4% from Somalia. When it comes to gender, 2/3 of the UMAs were boys. This was the case for most countries. 2/3 of the minors were between 15 and 18 years of age (UNHCR 2004). Rights of the Child In the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) it is stated as a main principle that it is in the best interest of the child to be together with his or her parents, although it is pointed out that there are exceptions to this. Some of these exceptions are especially relevant for UMAs. UMAs bring together two different fields: children's rights on the one hand, and the politics of asylum on the other. Family tracing and reunification form an important issue, politically as well as a legally. Despite this, tracing and family reunification are not carried through for a majority of UMAs. The difficulties involved in family tracing should be viewed in the light of both socio-political and legal fields, ie. considering the best interests of the child as well as the best interests of the state. A widespread culture of disbelief surrounding the intents and truthfulness of UMAs can be explained as part of a process that conflates the interests of the receiving state with the interests of the child. Low success rate for tracing familiesFamily tracing and reunification work is a complex task that demands extensive co-operation, with non-governmental organizations and other agencies and with the minor her/himself. Tracing work is both difficult and resource-demanding, and the success rate is generally low. Furthermore, not all successful family tracing leads to family reunification. The low success rates may be due to a variety of reasons, often in combination: Fear of putting the child in danger Experience from similar cases indicates tracing is not likely to succeed The minor does not consent or co-operate The minor has already been separated from parents or caregivers for a long time The disappearance/departure of the minor before family has been found Lack of local contacts or of knowledge of local conditions in countries of origin Tracing may be successful but the parents are considered unable/unsuited to take care of the child A web-based survey Our main source of data about the different countries' experiences and current practices has been an electronic, web-based survey containing just over 40 questions (cf. appendix). The questionnaire was sent to Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. France has not responded. The quality and fullness of the responses vary a great deal. Co-operation with NGOs Our findings show that none of the countries have a separate tracing unit within the organization that is ultimately responsible for the tracing work. All countries co-operate with NGOs - mostly with the national offices of the Red Cross. Both Finland and Norway have co-operated with International Social Service, but in both countries this co-operation came to an end in 2006. Most countries co-operate with the NGOs on an ad hoc basis. Norway, Sweden, Slovakia and the UK also report that they co-operate with their embassies or other diplomatic missions in the UMAs countries of origin.From several countriesThe UMAs originate in many different countries, but almost all of our responding countries report that they receive UMAs from Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. The numbers of UMAs which the different countries receive vary a great deal. Approximately 2000 UMAs arrived in the UK from January through September 2006. Sweden received approximately 600, and Norway has received more than 200 UMAs so far (November 2006). Finland had received about 90 and Denmark about 70 UMAs up to the time of reporting. Slovakia received 60 UMAs, but differs from the other countries in reporting that it is a transit country for UMAs.In many cases the minors disappear from Slovakia to other countries. Few reunifications UMAs are considered to be a political important issue in most of the countries, while the tracing of family members is considered to be somewhat less important. When deciding whether family tracing should be initiated the minor's age is very important. The younger the children, the more important family tracing and family reunification are. Although tracing is a relatively important political issue and has high priority in most countries, the results of their endeavors to trace and reunite the minors with their caregivers are largely negative. In accordance with international recommendations, it is widely reported that family tracing is not initiated without the child's consent. In particular the United Kingdom emphasizes this point. Successful tracing does not necessarily lead to reunification Not all successful tracings lead to family reunification. The parents' or other caregivers' ability to provide appropriate care is in most cases taken into consideration. In the UK no unaccompanied child will be removed from the UK unless adequate reception and care arrangements are in place in the country to which the child is to be removed. One may note that neither Denmark nor Sweden emphasize the caring ability of the parents when reunification is considered. Sweden has succeeded in tracing the parents or caregivers of 10-15 UMAs in 2006, while six to ten tracings have actually resulted in family reunification. Even in those relatively few cases where successful family tracing leads to family reunification, this does not take place in the country where the child has applied for asylum. The country of origin or other country of residence of the parents or caregivers is where reunification takes place. Norway has traced care giving persons of 6 minors from Iraq, Russia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Rwanda and Sri Lanka. One is uncertain how many of these tracings have led to family reunification, but the estimate number is between one and five, all of which took place outside Norway. Even though Slovakia is considered to be a transit country, the authorities have succeeded in tracing the families of ten minors since they started the tracing process In 2003. This has led to between six to ten reunifications outside Slovakia. In 2005 Slovakia commenced to trace the families of 40 UMAs. Under a voluntary return programme, the UK between 2001 and 2006 reunited 16 minors with their caregivers in Ethiopia, Tanzania and Iraq. Little information on tracing methods Because the immigration authorities do not have separate tracing units within their organizations, little specific information is available through our survey on the methods used in the tracing process. The general answer is that it is necessary to establish a good relationship with the UMAs in order to achieve his or her consent and co-operation. Without this kind of co-operation it is extremely difficult to get the necessary and correct information from the minors. Some countries stress the importance of co-operating with the embassies in the UMAs countries of origin. Especially Sweden stresses this point. Denmark has satisfactory results in using DNA-tests to identify care persons when they are located in Denmark. When the family cannot be tracedIn most cases, if the countries do not succeed in their tracing attempts or adequate care is not available in the country of origin or a third country, the minor is given temporary or permanent residence in the receiving country. Slovakia and the Netherlands are exceptions to this. In Slovakia, the authorities report that they remove the minor to an orphanage in a third country. In 2001, the Netherlands introduced a new UMA policy which implied it would be less difficult to return UMAs to their countries of origin. The precondition that has to be met for their return is that adequate care should be available. The term «adequate care» has been re-defined and is now measured against standards in the return country and not according to standards in the Netherlands. Best interest of the child? If the best interest of the child is to be with a primary caregiver, there is considerable discrepancy between the intentions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children and the results achieved in this field. The issue of UMAs is important in the countries we have been in contact with. The authorities are generally concerned about the well-being of the UMAs that arrive in their countries. Yet, due to the great complexity of these issues, where policies and politics are intertwined with myths and feelings, no one has succeeded in developing satisfactory tracing methods. Our respondents generally report that they are unsure of both methods and costs involved in the issue of family tracing and family unification. ; This report is a study of different European countries' practices and experiences in tracing the parents or other caregivers of separated minor asylum seekers. The term "unaccompanied minor asylum seekers" (UMAs) refers to children under the age of 18 who are separated from their caregivers, and who apply for asylum in a foreign country. The increase in the numbers of UMAs arriving in Europe from 2000-2003, along with an understanding of UMAs as particularly vulnerable, formed the point of departure for the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration to initiate this study. Our main source of data has been an electronic, web-based survey. The questionnaire was sent to Denmark, Finland, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. None of these countries have a separate tracing unit within the organization responsible for tracing UMAs' families. All the countries co-operate with NGOs, mostly with the national offices of the Red Cross on an ad hoc basis.Some countries make use of their embassies or other diplomatic missions in the UMAs countries of origin. Our findings show that tracing work is both difficult and resource-demanding, and the success rate generally low. Furthermore, not all successful family tracing leads to family reunification. In most cases, if the countries do not succeed in their tracing attempts or adequate care is not available in the country of origin or a third country, the minor is given temporary or permanent residence in the receiving country.

To work actively, in a targeted, planned manner to promote equality and prevent discrimination is an explicit objective for Norwegian authorities. To develop equal, non-discriminatory public services is an essential part of this work. The principal task of The Equality and Anti-discrimination ombud is to guide the public as well as government and private agencies on how to fulfil this objective. In 2010 the ombud worked specifically to raise awareness among authorities and public service institutions on how to offer equal services to all, irrespective of ethnicity, religion, gender, ability to function, age and sexual orientation. The present report was commissioned by The Equality and Anti-discrimination ombud. The research problem was to study whether and how the child welfare system in the municipality of Alna in Oslo provided equal and non-discriminatory services to all categories that are included in the anti-discriminatory acts. The research comprised four person months and consisted of interviews with public health nurses in three child welfare centres and parents in two open kindergartens, a short survey to parents visiting the centres and kindergartens and a survey to youths about the public health service in schools. Child Welfare centres are public health centres for families and for children and youth up to the age of 23. Alna is one of the most multicultural municipalities in Norway with 45% immigrants or children of immigrants, so ethnicity became the core issue of the study. According to our informants, questions of discrimination based on religion, ability to function and sexual orientation was not relevant because such clients were extremely rare. The focus among nurses and parents in the study was on ethnic discrimination or unequal services based on ethnicity and gender; this concern was consistent across both majority and minority groups. Our findings are presented in terms of Structural, Organisational and Cultural factors that hinder the development of equal services. Nancy Frazer's concepts distribution, recognition and representation are employed to assess the degree of equality of services.@ Structural barriers that may hinder equal services were found to be: Staff at child welfare centres do not represent the population they serve as almost all are native Norwegians without physical disabilities or other minority characteristics. We found that the formal competence in handling diversity among nurses is almost non-existing. We also found that too many tasks and too little time to perform them combined with many non- Norwegian- speaking clients, undersized budgets and no priority given to use interpreters. may hinder equal treatment. Organisational barriers were found to be: Services to children in school appeared to have limited availability due to a practice where children had to ask for leave to visit the public nurse. This may hinder children with ethnic backgrounds or with functional disabilities to reveal their vulnerability in class. Most consultations at child welfare centres are arranged as group consultations; individual consultations have to be specially asked for. This may be a hindrance for non-Norwegian clients and clients that want more privacy to receive the service they need. Most information brochures at the centres are available only in Norwegian, thus important information is often unavailable to non-Norwegian speakers. Tests used to assess the language skills and cognitive development of children are given in Norwegian only. Children with little competence in Norwegian are thus not tested equally to native speakers. Cultural barriers were found to be: Advice from nurses to parents were generally based on Norwegian "official" concepts of family. Cultural differences concerning child rearing practices and concepts concerning relationships between parents and children, were often difficult to follow, not only for many minority parents, but for many native parents as well. Advice was often not based on the actual diversity that exists among clients. Nurses reported experiencing tension between giving practical, "official" advice and being client-oriented and more culturally sensitive. Child welfare centres in the municipality of Alna are generally providing equal and non-discriminatory services to the population, but their ability to do this is restricted by some structural, organisational and cultural barriers that should be discussed and removed. ; Et likeverdig tjenestetilbud til alle, uansett etnisitet, kjønn, religion, funksjonsevne, alder og seksuell orientering, er en uttalt politisk målsetting. Hvordan realiseres denne målsettingen i praksis? For å svare på dette har NOVA gjennomført en datainnsamling om helsestasjonstilbudet i bydel Alna. Studien omfatter intervju med ansatte og foreldre på tre helsestasjoner og en kort spørreundersøkelse rettet mot foreldre og ungdom på skolene. Studien viser at det kun er etnisitet som oppfattes som etdiskrimineringsgrunnlag i bydelen, både blant ansatte og foreldre. Ansatte ser imidlertid ut til å håndtere dette mangfoldet på en ikke-diskriminerende måte. Vi fant imidlertid flere strukturelle og organisasjonsmessige forhold som kan hindre utførelsen av et likeverdig tjenestetilbud, og at kulturelle forskjeller mellom foreldres og helsestasjonenes sosialiseringsnormer kan føre til frustrasjoner hos begge parter.