Barnevern og ettervern

IntroductionAnalyses of Norwegian child welfare statistics reveal a remarkably high incidence of social assistance provision for young people who had been in the care of the child welfare services (Clausen & Kristofersen 2008b), and a correlation between perceived physical abuse and subsequent criminal behaviour (Clausen, 2004). Comparing groups of young adults with and without a history of protective care as children, recent studies find a higher rate of social assistance and crime and poorer educational outcomes among the former than the latter (Clausen & Kristofersen 2008b). What this research shows is that young adults that participate in aftercare preventive services run by the child welfare authorities, tend to do better in many areas than those young adults that do not participate in aftercare (Clausen & Kristofersen 2008b:55-64). The chief purpose of this study is a) describe and analyse trajectories and outcomes of the children and adolescents in care; and b) similarly describe and analyse indicators of social exclusion during the aftercare phase and into young adulthood. The project's intermediate objectives are specified below. The analyses seek to establish when children, adolescents and young adults aged 16-22 leave care. According to international research longer care appears to correlate with better prognoses (Courtney et al., 2006). When the present research was being planned, there was no comparable information on the situation in Norway. The project in that sense is a collation of descriptive analyses, each on longitudinal data obtained from registers. Under the intermediate objective heading, the followed three research questions were formulated:1. How many decide to remain voluntarily in foster care, in residential care or in housing/boarding on turning 18, and for how long? 2. What variations and patterns do we find in respect of education achievements, income levels and health between the ages of 18 and about 30?3. What is the mortality rate and what are the causes of death among the young themselves and their parents? The analysis of the three intermediate questions concentrates on three specific groups:1. Young people in care - including the 18{22 age-group2. A group comprising former children/adolescents in care, but with no record of aftercare3. A group assembled for comparative purposes of young people with no record of care at all Aftercare: knowledge statusBefore 2008 there was little evidence-based information on aftercare services provided by the child welfare authorities in Norway, or indeed with regard to the other Nordic countries. According to a recently published NOVA report on aftercare (Bakketeig & Backe-Hansen 2008), the UK and US lead research in the field. The authors found a handful of studies by researchers in the Nordic countries, Australia, Canada, Israel and Spain. Most of the studies in the two latter countries focus on living conditions. What one understands less is why the outcomes of some of the non-aftercare cases should be as poor as they are, and why aftercare should have such a beneficial effect. While there has been research in the UK and US on these questions, the situation in Norway is rather different, precluding a simple one-to-one correspondence. Care trajectories and aftercareAftercare is defined in this report in line with the Child Welfare Act and its provisions on aftercare for the 19-22 age-group. For methodological reasons we are unable to identify aftercare programmes put in motion for 18-year-olds. The total number of participants in aftercare programmes in one or more of the years between 1990 and 2005 was close on 10,860. Of these, 53 per cent were male and 47 per cent female. Just over half (55 per cent) of the aftercare programmes for the nearly10,860individuals lasted no longer than one calendar year (twelve consecutive months). A small third (30 per cent) participated in aftercare programmes over two calendar years; nearly 9 per cent over three calendar years; almost 4 per cent over four years; and 2 per cent over five calendar years. In other words, aftercare programmes for most individuals are relatively short, and many leave aftercare before turning 20. Almost 75 per cent of the aftercare group (the 1990-2005 cohort) are ethnic Norwegians, whereas just over 25 per cent are of foreign descent. As such, the group is slightly more multi-ethnic than the population of children in ordinary care programmes (23 per cent from other countries) and the comparison group (nearly 21 per cent from other countries). We find a significantly higher proportion of individuals from Norway in the comparison group (77 per cent) and, not least, in the non-aftercare group of former children in care (79 per cent). We also find a higher percentage originating from non-European countries in the aftercare group (compared with the wider child care population). The leading continents here are Africa and Asia (accounting for 17.3 per cent). It is particularly evident set against the comparison group (8.3 per cent from these two continents). But it is noticeable in the non-aftercare population, where the percentage of participants from African and Asian countries is much lower (10.8 per cent). Wide disparities separate the nationalities with the highest percentages of individuals in child care and aftercare. Some nationalities are "overrepresented" in the child care population, relative to the comparison group, while other nationalities are correspondingly "underrepresented". The percentage of "others" in the child care population echoes that of the population at large. But we also find wide nationality disparities in the aftercare population, where certain ethnic minorities are "overrepresented" compared with the rest of the child care population and wider population. Aftercare programmes wax and wane in popularityWhile the percentage of young adults participating in aftercare programmes grew, particularly in the period 1998{2005, programme options available to the 19-22 age-group changed as well, some very significantly. Some types of interventions gained in popularity throughout the period, others peaked and fell back. Some types of preventive measures receded in absolute numbers during 2003{05. Whether these fluctuations represent the after effects of central or regional policies, or a more random response to a somewhat diffuse national aftercare policy, is difficult to say. The number of 19-22-year-olds admitted to an ordinary foster home between 1998 and 2005 almost doubled in absolute and relative terms. In 1998, 230 individuals in this age-group lived with a foster family; by 2005, the number had risen to nearly 430 (nearly 2 per mille in this age-group). Part of the explanation can be found in 1998 raising of the aftercare age limit, which had something of a delayed impact. But the most recent rise was caused by other factors. In light of the number in foster homes under assistance and care programmes for the 16-18-year-old age-group (about 6 per 1,000 throughout the period 2002{2004), the number of foster home admissions by the aftercare agencies is relatively low. In the course of this calendar year, the rate halves for each of new cohort aged 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. There was an increase in residential care (24 hours care in child welfare institutions) for the entire group of 16-22-year-olds between 1998 and 2002/03; levels have since stabilised. Residential aftercare also increased among the oldest age-group (19-22) up to about 2002, but the age group then fell off slightly with regard to institutional care (both absolutely and relatively). The "surge" of16-18-year-oldsin 2003-05 may have made it harder to admit the eldest covered in this report to institutional care. Most 16-18-year-olds are admitted to institutional care on a voluntary basis. The child welfare authorities grew increasingly keen to allocate housing and boarding during these years; more so than referring cases to substance abuse institutions and collectives. This applies both to 16-18-year-olds and 19-22-year-olds. All the same, there is a relatively large untapped potential here. Housing and boarding could therefore be used to significantly greater extent. Accommodation as an aftercare measure was allocated to 470 young adults in the 19-22 age-group in 2005, but these individuals represent only 2 per mille of the age-group's total population. The number of 18-year-olds for whom child welfare measures were put in train in 2005 (all programme categories) was, by contrast, about 2,000, that is, 3.7 per cent of the overall population of 18-year-olds. Education and work as a form of child welfare support also rose rapidly between 1998 and 2005. Both expedients are much more likely to be prescribed for 16-18-year-olds as an aftercare measure. Just over 110 individuals in the 19-22 age-group were helped in this way in 2005, or only 0.5 per mille of the population. Knowing how important education and housing is for individuals in aftercare, it would be advisable to work for a radical expansion of this programme. Financial support for child welfare clients is prescribed more than any other aftercare programme. It rose rapidly as an aftercare and ordinary child welfare measure between 1998 and 2005. Over 1,000 individuals aged 19-22, or 5 per mille of the entire age-group's population, received financial support from the child welfare services in 2005. Nineteen-year-olds in aftercare more likely than any other group to enjoy financial support, though frequency declines by 50 per cent for each additional year of age. Despite the primacy of financial support as a child welfare and social assistance measure, it has attracted very little Norwegian research. It is often provided in tandem with other child care facilities. Educational, livelihood and health-related outcomes among young adults (disability pension etc.)Aftercare clients' educational achievements are generally higher compa

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.