History of child protection: can we learn from the past? Residential care for children: both the problem and the solution

Marie Sallnäs, Department of Social Work, Stockholm University

A duality ● A strong belief in what can be achieved through

residential care ● A strong criticism of the negative sides of a

residential environment

Residential care – the setting Total institutions/ Erwin Goffman (1961): ● Domains (sleep, work, leisure) normally separated,

are integrated under the same roof. ● Staff and clients are separated from each other. ● The individual is standardised to fit into the

framework of the institution. ● Staff and clients tend to see each other as

stereotypes. ● Contacts with the neigbourhood are limited.

.

History Protection of children

badly behaved, poor, or amoral children

should be kept away from well-behaved children

A recurrent theme is to differentiate between the “good” children who have to be protected and the “bad” ones who have to be kept away from society and from their peers. Different types of residential care were created for the two categories, a separation that still exists.

●

1850 - 1960s “total institutions”, big, diciplinary

●

1970s , 1980s deinstiutionaization, smaller institutions, the idea of treatment

●

1990 – expansion, privatization, evidenced based methods

State inquiries about historical abuse in residential care Inquiries in many countries - “the age of apology” What made the abuse possible? Conclusions in the Swedish inquiry:

●

The vulnerability of the child, the powerlessness in their situation

●

The isolation of the child – the more isolated, the more exposed to risk of abuse

●

General lack of interest in society about the situation of placed children. Not a priority.

●

No or few consequences or penalties for abusing children.

Didn’t anybody know? ● There was a formal and relatively strong

structure for inspection (audit) and routines for how inspections of residential homes should be operated. Visits should be made and the inspectors should speak to the children. ● Historically, inspection was no guarantee against

abuse of children in care. ● Stunning similarities between how the inspection

mandate was formulated and organised then and today. ● Today?

How shall we avoid a new inquiry about abuse of children in care? ● Enforced inspection – the audit explosion.

Recent study: ● Difficulties in giving children's views substantial

impact on the inspection process. ● Most of the regulatory quality criteria used by

the authority diverge from the aspects of care that children attach most importance to. (Pålsson, 2015)

Today? ● Smaller units more open to the neighbourhood,

relations between staff and children important, discourse about children's voice, more rightbased care…… ● But, still demanding milieu, a collective structure

organising children's time and space, less access to resources including help with school work, increased risk of bullying …Life in the institution differs from life outside. ● Unknown treatment effects (short and long

term).

What did the children write about their residential home?

Not so good

Good ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Most often good staff Good contact between children and adults Staff is reasonable and things can be discussed Staff who helps The competence and patience of the personel Washing machine, internal school, computer, tv Good food

Lundström & Sallnäs, 2013

● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Pompous staff Personel who work only for money Made up rules, no one listens to the children Curfew if we don’t behave The aridity, the scheduled life They use collective punishment Too little freedom Far from school Have lost concact with friends Too little contact with my family

Looking forward, aspects to consider ●

Regime, climate, culture –

●

Eduction of staff, consensus about what to do etc

Relations –

within the group of children, within staff, staff – children.

●

The composition of the group of children.

●

Working methods/treatment methods –

No repression, no collective punishment

●

Childrens contact with family and friends

●

School and health issuse

●

Leaving care services

●

Etc

Literature ●

Egelund, T., & Jakobsen, T. B. (Eds.). (2011c), Døgninstitutionen. Motsætninger og strategier når børn og unge anbringes, København, Hans Rietzels Forlag.

●

Espersen, L. D. (2010). Bekymrende identiteter. Anbragte børns hverdagsliv på behandlingshjem. København: Sociologisk institut, Københavns Universitetet og Det Nationale Forskningscenter for Velfærd.

●

Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums, essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Anchor Book

●

Lundström, T., & Sallnäs, M. (2013). Att värdera dygnsvård: hur nöjda är barnen och vilken betydelse har det. Socionomen, 40-51.

●

Pålsson, D. (2015). Conditioned agency? The role of children in the audit of Swedish residential care. Child & Family Social Work.

●

Sköld, J., & Swain, S. (Eds.). (2015). Apologies and the Legacy of Abuse of Children in'Care': International Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan.

●

Stokholm, A. (2009). Anbragte børn mellem kammerater og pædagoger. En antropologisk analyse af socialitet og identitetsdannelse på døgninstitution. Aarhus: Institut for antropologi, arkæologi og lingvistik, Aarhus Universitet.