AbstractThis paper explores how young people who have been in out‐of‐home care develop a positive agentic capacity. The analyses are based on longitudinal biographical interviews with 24 care experienced young people (age 16–32 years) living in Norway. At the time of the interviews, they were in the education system or working and described themselves as 'doing well'. Through the application of a relational understanding of agency, this paper provides in‐depth insights into how relations shape the biography, identity and decisions of young people with care backgrounds, scaffold positive possibilities and enhance their life opportunities.
This report concerns the municipalities' work against violence and abuse against vulnerable adults. NOVA prepared this report as commissioned by The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir). The overarching theme of the report is how the municipalities are working to deal with violence and abuse against vulnerable adults when such cases are disclosed or suspected, and how this work is organized. In the report we provide an overview of the tools used by municipalities when disclosing or suspecting violence, abuse or neglect. Bufdir has developed guidelines on sexual abuse of adults with intellectual disability, a guide to the guidelines, and a website with information about the material. The report also presents the experiences of the municipalities that are familiar with and have adopted this material. We conducted telephone interviews with a random sample of 100 municipalities, with a geographical and quantity representative spread. Extended interviews were done with 20 municipalities that had experiences with the materials developed by Bufdir. Based on the data, the following research questions were posed: How do the municipalities organize their work to safeguard adults at risk of abuse and neglect? Do they have a working system in the form of action plans and procedures for notification and reporting when such issues arise? What kind of tools are municipalities using to handle violence and abuse against adults at risk? Which vulnerable groups and forms of violence and abuse are covered by the plans and procedures, and which need more attention? Are the municipalities familiar with the guidelines regarding sexual abuse of adults with intellectual disability, the guide to these guidelines, as well as the website "vernmotovergrep.no"? Have the guidelines been adopted? Moreover, what are the experiences of the municipalities that have put this material to use? One third of the municipalities have notification and reporting systems Work against violence and abuse against vulnerable adults and how such matters are discovered and handled varies from one municipality to another. The study shows that nearly half of the municipalities have action plans against domestic violence in general, while just under one quarter have action plans against domestic violence for adults at risk. A main finding is that one third of the municipalities have notification and reporting procedures that specifically target high-risk adults. 13 municipalities have notification and reporting procedures that are more general, they do not specify vulnerable group or form of violence. More than half of the municipalities have no notification and reporting systems. The findings of this study indicates that the work these municipalities do is arbitrary and related to when actual cases occur. We find that municipalities with notification and reporting systems that specifically target adults at risk are often large and medium-sized municipalities where shelters are located in the same municipality. This may indicate that municipalities that host shelters have better access to resources such as expertise, and that larger municipalities tend to have more specialized positions that make it easier to develop and implement tools and systems. The study indicates that although a municipality may have warning and reporting systems it is not a given that the system is established and used. The work on implementation of routines seem somewhat variable from one municipality to another, and tools appear in some cases as "dead documents". Most of the municipalities reported, however, that the procedures are well known on both management and service level. However, they are often introduced in only one line of service, and as such are not holistic systems. Tools for certain forms of violence and certain vylnerable adults The study indicates that the tools used mostly covers sexual offenses committed against the disabled. The tool that most municipalities employ is "Guidelines. Cases involving sexual abuse of adults with learning disabilities." Other than this, the municipalities mostly develop their own tools. We find few tools involving people with mental illness and people with substance abuse problems. Furthermore, financial abuse and neglect are both forms of violence that most notification and reporting systems and tools seem to exclude. A main conclusion of the study is that notification and reporting tools that target other forms of violence than sexual abuse are lacking. Moreover, they seldom target other groups at risk than those with learning disabilities. There is a need for more focus, knowledge and tools related to multiple forms of violence and several groups of adults at risk to ensure equal and legal protection. Tools may increase disclosure Municipalities that have experiences with the Bufdir material are very pleased with it. Only a few municipalities have taken advantage of the website «vernmotovergrep.no", and it is mostly known at management level. Of municipalities that have adopted the guidelines, we find that it is largely known to both manage and service level. The main impression is that the tool provides security when situations arise. The recommended handling is perceived as correct, and to be of good help. Municipalities that have used the tool in specific cases, points out that several cases are reported to the police and that several forms of abuse has been uncovered as a result of the introduction of the guidelines. Tools like "Guidelines. Cases involving sexual abuse of adults with intellectual disabilities" may be a driving force in raising the quality of services in the municipalities, ensuring that adults at risk are safeguarded in a good way and protecting their rights. A procedure for handling the disclosure of violence or abuse is, however, of little worth if it is not implemented well in the services rendered. Nor is it of much use if the services lack expertise and knowledge on how to recognize and detect violence and abuse. Recommendations Based on the results that emerge in the study we give some recommendations. We recommend the development of a more comprehensive tool for handling violence and abuse cases, involving multiple forms of violence, abuse and neglect, as well as several groups of at-risk adults. Knowledge and skills are prerequisites to be able to disclose violence and abuse. We therefore recommend that both service providers and managers receive adequate training in the use of these tools, and to develop comprehensive implementation strategies. Equally important is knowledge on violence and abuse against adults at risk, including knowledge of the different expressions violence may take. Municipalities should furthermore make use of shelters and RVTSs to build up expertise on violence and abuse in their services. Our last recommendation is for each municipality to establish a system to ensure that all services have notification and reporting procedures so that the individual service provider know how she / he will handle a situation when it arises. The routines that the system are based on should also be revised regularly to ensure they are based on new knowledge and current legislation. Furthermore, the system should involve instruction routines for new appointees, as well as for the notification and reporting procedures. To uphold knowledge about violence and abuse against adults at risk the municipalities ought to give the topic attention on regularly yearly basis. ; Eldre, psykisk syke og rusmisbrukere samt personer med fysisk funksjonsnedsettelse eller utviklingshemming har økt risiko for å bli utsatt for omsorgssvikt, fysisk, psykisk, seksuell eller økonomisk vold. Når vold mistenkes eller oppdages av ansatte i kommunale eller statlige hjelpetjenester, kan det å ha prosedyrer for hvordan man skal håndtere situasjonen, være avgjørende for et godt videre forløp i saken. I studien av hvordan 100 norske kommuner arbeider for å verne risikoutsatte voksne mot vold og overgrep, finner forskerne ved NOVA at 35 prosent av kommunene har varslingssystemer for avdekking av vold og overgrep, og at disse stort sett omhandler seksuelle overgrep mot utviklingshemmede. Et annet hovedfunn er at kommuner som har innført slike systemer, har økt avdekkingen av vold og overgrep mot gruppen.
This report presents findings from the first evaluation of the Norwegian equivalent to children's advocacy centers: Statens barnehus. The evaluation was carried out on behalf of the Police Directorate. A second report from the evaluation is published by the Police Academy (Bakketeig et al. 2012). The Norwegian barnehus model is aimed primarily at police reported incidents of violence and sexual abuse against children under the age of 16. The role of the barnehus staff is to coordinate and facilitate the police interview with the child, to evaluate the child's need for psyco-social assistance, and to provide short term treatment to those in need. The model aims at reducing the stress of the legal process for children and families, to increase the level of cooperation between professionals and to build and disseminate knowledge about victimized children. This evaluation includes six of the seven centers that exist in Norway, all established from 2007 through 2009. In the report we describe the experiences with the Norwegian barnehus model from the perspectives of children and parents, the police and legal professionals, and staff and administrators. The analysis is based on both interview and survey data. The number of police interviews carried out in a barnehus increased from 2010 to 2011. In 2011 1605 police interviews with children were carried out in the six centers included in the evaluation. In centers with a particularly high increase the work load is experienced as too heavy for the staff. The staffs work can be divided into three phases: the preparation phase, the police interview phase and the follow up phase. All centers carry out important tasks in the three phases, but some pay more attention to all tasks than do others. Our conclusion is that there is a need for guidelines as to what the barnehus staff's tasks are in different phases and how the different task should be carried out. The centers are administered and financed by the police districts in which they are located. The administrators report that this has worked fine, and that the link to the police system has given the barnehus model a needed legitimacy in the foundation phase. In their view the time has come, however, to rethink this model of organization. We conclude in accordance with the administrators: the current model of organization may work against the aim of a common work standard in cases involving victimized children. Children and accompanying adults give both then barnehus staff and the police interviewers positive evaluations. They feel taken care of, and appreciate the friendly atmosphere at the barnehus. The message from children is that barnehus is a good place for children. The police and legal professionals are also positive in their evaluations of the barnehus model. Children receive good care "under one roof», the staff is competent in children's issues and they do a good job at taking care of the parents. The downside is the extra time needed to travel to the barnehus. Some also feel that the use of barnehus leads to more weight being put on the best interest of the child than on the legal process. A majority of 70 percent feel, however, that these issues are well balanced. The police and legal professionals were also asked a number of questions regarding the procedure for police interviews. The message from the police and legal professionals is that the current legal regulation should be changed on a number of issues. For instance, a majority of 72 percent stated that barnehus should not be voluntary for the police districts, but used in all relevant cases. All in all we conclude that the aims of the measure are fulfilled. Children who are interviewed by the police at barnehus receive better care than children who are interviewed at the police station or in the local court. The model also leads to a more coordinated effort from the involved professionals both from the legal and medical systems. Our view is that it has lead to increased awareness in the general population and higher competence among professionals as well. Two challenges appear from our analyses however: the increased mismatch between police reported cases and resources at the barnehus and the lack of guidelines for the staffs work. ; Denne evalueringen er gjennomført på oppdrag fra Politidirektoratet, og publiseres som delrapport 2 av Barnehusevalueringen 2012 – den første evalueringen av barnehusenes virksomhet siden de ble etablert. I rapporten belyser vi ordningen med barnehus sett fra ulike aktørers ståsted: barn og pårørende, jurister og politifolk, samt ledere og ansatte ved barnehusene. Overordnet handler rapporten om hvilken betydning innføringen av barnehusmodellen har hatt for ivaretakelsen av barn mistenkt utsatt for vold og seksuelle overgrep, og for koordineringen av arbeidet til aktuelle instanser i slike saker. Rapporten peker også på utfordringer knyttet til barnehusenes virksomhet og den organisatoriske forankringen de har i dag.
This report aims to contribute to the hitherto scarce knowledge of disabled children and young people who are under the auspices of the child protection services. What characterizes their situation? What are their and their carers' needs, and what kinds of challenges and opportunities do they experience? These are central questions in the study presented here. Due to the scarcity of research regarding this group of children and youth in Norway, we have chosen to conduct an explorative study in order to identify important topics and challenges. The report explores the experiences of young people who have been under placement by the child protection services, of their foster parents, and of employees within the child protection services. We have interviewed 28 people in all. Because of their different positions in relation to the topic, their experiences vary and to some extent diverge. However, our analyses reveal that one common experience is that the premises laid down by economic and administrative rules have consequences for how the employees of the child protection services carry out their work among disabled children and youth. In Norway, disabled children experiencing deficit of parental care have rights according to different legal acts. For instance, The Child Welfare Act regulates children's and youth's rights to help and care measurements due to failure of parental care, while their need for services because of disability are regulated by the Social Services act. These acts are administered by different governmental departments, which also have different budgets. For disabled children and youth this implies that responsibilities and payments for the services they need are divided between different governmental departments. In the interviews with the employees, they reported spending much time and effort, first selecting measures when a disabled child or young person was in need of child protection, and then to sort out which departments were responsible for providing the different services. They also said they found it complicated to determine whether the difficult situation for the child was caused by parents lacking proper parental skills, or if it was caused by insufficient support from other governmental services, e.g. respite care. The young adults interviewed in this study had been placed outside home by the child protection authorities reported that the neglect they were subject to was related to their impairments. Their disability also partly made them take the blame for their parents' neglect or maltreatment of them. They also experienced that child protection services' decisions to remove them from their home were delayed because of the disabilities. Being taken out of their parental home was experienced as an immediate improvement of their life situation. However, whether they were placed in an institution run by the child protection authorities or in a home for disabled children, they found that the staff lacked a combined expertise regarding the combination of disability and being subject to parental neglect or maltreatment. One of the informants was placed in foster care; something that he stated "saved his life". One common experience among the three informants was that they were met with low expectations from employees in the child protection services, regarding their educational and work aspirations. They also found the child protection services to give priority to economic concerns rather than to their best interests; this, the informants said, had confirmed to them that they not only were a burden to their parents, but also to society. The foster parents interviewed showed a strong attachment and engagement in their foster children's welfare. All the foster parents in the nine foster homes had previous experience, either with being parents or foster parents to disabled children. They all reported that when the foster child first arrived, the cooperation with the child protection services worked well. They came to an agreement regarding compensation for costs and salary, and the child received all the necessary services. They all said that they thought the contract they had agreed on would last as long as they were foster parents; something they envisioned would be for many years. In the first two to three years, they were regularly followed up by a caseworker, then these visits became fewer and fewer. Most of the foster parents reacted negatively to this change, seeing it as a growing disinterest in them and the foster child's situation. Previous research shows that parents of disabled children often experience great difficulties in obtaining sufficient services and economic support. The foster parents in this study said they saw the child protection services as an assurance that they would continually be receiving needed services and economic support. However, most of them said that after a few years the child protection services wanted to renegotiate the contracts, making them less favourable for the foster parents. According to the foster parents the child protection services argued that the disability was no longer their responsibility, and that the foster parents' from now on had to apply for services and economic compensation in the same way as ordinary parents of disabled children. The foster parents experienced this as an attempt from the child protection services to evade their responsibility and going back on their promises. Nevertheless, the foster parents' negative feelings were not necessarily directed at their case worker, a person they often felt was sympathetic to their situation, but rather at the system which seemed to make the case workers incapable of acting in favour of the converging interests of the child and the foster parents. In the cases where the foster parents stated that continued co-operation with the child protection services worked well, the case worker seemed to have gone beyond his or her authority. ; Innebærer det å ha en funksjonsnedsettelse noen særlige utfordringer for barn og unge med behov for hjelpe- eller omsorgstiltak fra barnevernet? Gjennom kartlegging av erfaringene til tidligere barnevernsbarn, fosterforeldre og barnevernsansatte viser denne rapporten at utfordringene er komplekse og ligger på flere plan. Intervjumaterialet belyser hvordan fordelingen av økonomisk og administrativt ansvar, innen og mellom ulike etater, er svært ressurskrevende og kan være til hinder for en god ivaretakelse av barn og unge. Videre belyses hvordan brukere av barnevernstjenesten opplever at det er vanskelig å få gehør for at kombinasjonen funksjonsnedsettelse og omsorgssvikt kan kreve en særlig innsats fra hjelpeapparatet.
ABSTRACTWith placement in residential care, society assumes overall responsibility for a child's daily care, well‐being and development. How public authorities respond to poor care quality is of crucial importance. To guarantee quality care and minimise risks, welfare states increasingly develop different mechanisms and systems to supervise out‐of‐home care. In this article, we analyse how central inspectorates in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden deal with what can be conceived as the last supervisory measure, namely, the revocation of licences. The aim is to describe and analyse how frequently and why national inspectorates in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden withdraw residential care licences. The findings are based on an analysis of all available documented reports on revocation decisions between 2017 and 2021. The findings reveal that, between 2017 and 2021, there were 53 licence suspensions or revocations across the four countries, albeit with variations among the nations. Furthermore, the study shows that residential care units (RCUs) generally have a documented history of interactions with inspectorates. Revocation decisions were often attributed to several reasons, with safety, staff‐related concerns and documentation deficiencies being the primary factors. The findings are discussed based on concepts and theory on regulation and supervision.
