Good idea, bad prerequisite, zero result – the meaning of context in implementing aftercare for young people in secure unit care
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-10-2013-0035 |
| Date | 09 September 2014 |
| Published date | 09 September 2014 |
| Pages | 248-260 |
| Author | Maria Andersson Vogel,Marie Sallnäs,Tommy Lundström |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Children's services |
Good idea, bad prerequisite, zero
result – the meaning of context in
implementing aftercare for young
people in secure unit care
Maria Andersson Vogel, Marie Sallna
¨s and Tommy Lundstro
¨m
Dr Maria Andersson Vogel is a
PhD, Professor Marie Sallna
¨sis
a PhD and Professor Tommy
Lundstro
¨m is a PhD, all are
based at Department of Social
Work, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to report results from a quasi-experimental study of
outcomes of a leaving care project for youth placed in secure unit care and second, based on the (zero)
results, to analyse and discuss the interplay between organisational boundaries, social work and the target
group when implementing a project such as the one studied.
Design/methodology/approach – The outcome study had a quasi-experimental design. The young
people in the leaving care programme were compared with a matched reference group who did not get the
special leaving care services. Data were collected (structured Adolescent Drug Abuse Diagnosis-interviews)
when the young people entered secure units and on follow-up (registered crime and re-entry into care).
Findings – The outcome study showed that the leaving care project had no effect on the young people’s
situation at follow-up regarding re-offending and re-entry into secure unit care. This is understood and
discussed in relation to the poor implementation of the leaving care project along with an inbuilt conflict
between state and local municipality that overshadowed the good intentions of the project.
Research limitations/implications – The effect study has a quasi-experimental design, and hence
differences between the project group and the comparison group at T1 cannot be fully precluded, although
nothing is pointing in such a direction. The unclear content of the intervention makes it difficult to decode
how the variation in the support given to the young people eventually impacted the results. The zero-results
apply to group level, but that may not be valid for each and every one in the project.
Practical implications – According to earlier research, a key person following young persons through
different phases of the care trajectory may be of importance. Learning from the CoC project, one can
conclude that such a key person should preferably take the role of advocate for the young person, and not
be an administrator mainly concerned with coordinating other professionals. Further, when planning and
financing is split between organisations, that split hinders efforts to actually mobilise support for young
people leaving secure unit care.
Originality/value – Few leaving care services are designed for youth with severe behavioural problems
and hence, the research is scarce. This study contributes with important knowledge about leaving care
interventions for the target group.
Keywords Interventions, Young people, Antisocial youth, Leaving care, Organization of services,
Secure unit
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
In Sweden, secure units with far-reaching disciplinary powers have the task of educating,
treating, handling and controlling young people with extensive behavioural problems. This kind
of residential care is a heavily institutionalised way of dealing with problematic youth. However,
The CoC-project was initiated and
funded by the Swedish
government. Within this
commission, funding for external
evaluation was included. The
authors of this paper applied for
funding of the effect study in
competition with other applicants.
The authors have no vested interest
in the CoC-project. The study was
approved by The Regional Ethical
Review Board, Stockholm, reg no.
2006/402-31.
PAGE 248
j
JOURNAL OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES
j
VOL. 9 NO. 3 2014, pp. 248-260, CEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1746-6660 DOI 10.1108/JCS-10-2013-0035
To continue reading
Request your trial