Trends in child protection in the Nordic welfare states - Denmark as case

TRENDS IN CHILD PROTECTION IN THE NORDIC WELFARE STATES - Denmark as case ANNE-DORTHE HESTBÆK, HEAD OF CHILD & FAMILY DEPARTMENT. SFI – DANISH NATIONAL CENTRE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH

Main trends in Danish child protection

• Search for evidence • Early intervention • Inclusion • More foster care. Less institutionalized care • Expand kinship care • Limit the costs

05-09-2014 TRENDS IN CHILD PROTECTION IN THE NORDIC WELFARE STATES - Denmark as case

2

National social targets for 2020 Equal opportunities for socially excluded children and youth 1. At least 50% must finish secondary education by age 25 2. Better levels of reading and math in elementary school 3. 25% reduction in crime-rate for the 15-17 year olds 4. 30% reduction in untimely termination of placements in foster-care or institutions (break downs)


3

Main trends in Danish child protection

• Search for evidence • Early intervention • Inclusion • More foster care. Less institutionalized care • Expand kinship care • Limit the costs


4

Side effects

• Severe budget cuts locally o Decrease in the overall no. of children in out-of-home

care o Fewer children in residential care o A slowly growing no. in foster care, kinship care included

• Evidence trend misused


5

24 cut of home care 0-17 year in Denmark


6

2008 2010 2012 No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct.

24-hour residential institution, total

3.073 23 2.882 23 2.566 22

Foster care, total 6.192 48 6.434 51 6.795 57

Network care 425 3 409 3 366 3

Kinship care

218 2 331 3 470 4

Foster care

5.548 43 5.693 45 5.737 48

Municipal foster care (from 2011) 1 0 1 0 222 2

Group care home 2.281 18 2.132 17 1.779 15

Others 1.301 9 1.233 10 885 7 Total 12.847 100 12.691 100 12.025 100

Periods in Danish child protection

1. The Continuation Period ( 1995-2000) 2. The Reform Period (2001-2005) 3. The Reframing Period (2006) 4. A new paradigm approaching? Hestbæk, 2012


7

Child protection in the Nordic countries

• Early prevention • In-home services • Out-of home placements remains constantly high (1%) • About 2/3 of out-of-home placements concern 13-17 year

olds • Problematic and negative outcomes as young adults • Placement breakdown

• (Pösö, Skivenes & Hestbæk 2013)


8

• The biggest part of children from year 1995 has been placed 1-2 times (57%)

• 5% placed 5 times or more • The more siblings in the family, the more separate placements

• (Lausten, Andersen, Skov & Nielsen 2013)


9

DALSCC – Danish Longitudinal Study of Children in Care

School performance

• At age 7, 1/4 was predicted not to complete elementary school • A fair prediction? • At age 15,

• many has the ambition of becoming social worker • Half of them had not reached level 9 (last year of

mandatory elementary school) • 5% do not go to school during placement • 14% of those, exited care, do not go to school (Lausten, Andersen, Skov & Nielsen 2013)


10

DALSCC – Danish Longitudinal Study of Children in Care

Long term effects of out-of-home placement

• Lower education and labor market participation - 21-30 percentage points larger prob. for low level of education

(only 9th grade) - 11-19% larger probability for receiving early pension - 26-29% less probability for working or under education

• Physical and mental health

- 5-8% larger prob. for hospitalization for somatic problems - 8-10% larger pro. for registered mental disorders

• Higher crime – violence and enrichment

- 12-14 percentage larger probability for at least one conviction

(Olsen, Egelund & Lausten 2011)


11

In-home care versus out-of-home placement

Out-of-home placement is better, when the aim is: • To prevent and reduce drug problems among youngsters • To reduce conflicts with parents and siblings for young people with

heavy problems • To get the youngster one back to school, into education or work and

to ensure school support for young people with heavy problems

Preventive meassures are better at: • Preventing and reducing problems with social relations,

externalizing behavior and dysfunctionality in the family - To prevent physical and psychological abuse and neglect in the

family for young people with less heavy problems: - To get the young person to school, into work or into education

young people with less heavy problems:

(Knudsen & Lehmann Nielsen, 2010)


12

Alternatives to care project

Positive results: • When they use family therapy /family treatment as a method

with preschool and school children and their families • When they strengthen the youngster’s own social

competences and networks to peers not socially excluded

Negative results: • Young people with drug and/or delinquency problems were

worse off AFTER the intervention, than before the intervention.

• (Lausten, Hansen & Myrup Jensen, 2013)


13

Placement break down

Almost half of the Danish young out-of-home placement experience placement break down:

• 44 % of young people in care experience one or more break downs during their placement course

• 2/3 of the break downs happens with in the first year Indicators on an organizational level:

1) (Too) little time spent on the concrete case increase instability

2) The more discontinuity as concerns social workers, the more discontinuity for the child

3) Economic limits increases break downs

(Egelund og Jacobsen)


14

Kinship care versus foster care

Positive difference • Children in kinship care has stronger networks • Children in kinship care has fewer mental problems

Negative difference

• Kinship carers not able to maintain the weakest children in school / education

• (Knudsen & Egelund, 2011)


15


16

Thank you for your attention Anne-Dorthe Hestbæk, [email protected]

#Anne_D_Hestbaek

mailto:[email protected]

Agenda today

1) Main trends in Danish child protection 2) Equal opportunities for Socially excluded children and youth 3) Side effects 4) Periods in Danish child protection 5) Child protection in the Nordic countries 6) Selected research results


17

RCT-study about school support for children in foster care

To promote the school performance and cognitive development of children in foster care by an impact study with two different school interventions: A school-based intervention inspired by the swedish SkolFamprogramme

(Tideman et al. 2011) A home-based intervention inspired by the Canadian ’Kids in Care Project’

(Flynn et al. 2012)

Sample: • 6-13 year olds and registred in 1. grade • Foster care – not institution • Are participating in general education – not in special class • Has a radical developmental disorder


18

Science

Trends in child protection in the Nordic welfare states - Denmark as case