Locking Up for the Best Interests of the Child — Some Preliminary Remarks on ‘Special Care’
| Published date | 01 December 2010 |
| Date | 01 December 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225410381687 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Youth Justice
Locking Up for the Best Interests
10(3) 245–257
© The Author(s) 2010
of the Child – Some Preliminary
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473225410381687
Remarks on ‘Special Care’
yjj.sagepub.com
Tarja Pösö, Manu Kitinoja and Taru Kekoni
Abstract
The article studies the practice of one special form of closed accommodation: special care. The term suggests
that this is a welfare-oriented response to norm-breaking behaviour of young people. The empirical example
comes from Finland, where special care is defined as restrictive activity under the Child Welfare Act and
aimed at, among other things, interrupting a vicious circle of crime in young people for the best interests
of the child. A contradictory picture is drawn of special care. The article suggests that the contradictions
should be understood – but not necessarily accepted – within the social context in which the institutional
placements take place.
Keywords
child welfare, closed accommodation, special care, youth residential care, youth social problems
Introduction
Over 15 years ago, Robert Harris and Noel Timms (1993: 39–45) identified two contra-
dictory viewpoints concerning closed accommodation for children and young people. The
first viewpoint emphasizes the fact that in certain situations, some children and young
people have to be placed in institutions for their own good. According to this viewpoint,
closed accommodation works in the child’s best interests and responds to the child’s
needs. The second viewpoint approaches closed accommodation via the theme of locking-
up. Closed accommodation is seen as restricting the rights of the child or the young person.
The authors felt that both viewpoints were too simplistic: the first is unreasonably naïve,
the second unreasonably cynical.
Harris and Timms’s analysis is surprisingly relevant today, when it is considered that
children’s rights should also extend to situations such as closed accommodation, which
are a response to children and young people breaking norms (e.g. Hammarberg, 2008;
Kilkely, 2008). Still, the viewpoints tend to be polarized as either defending or rejecting
Corresponding author:
Professor Tarja Pösö, Department of Social Work Research, 33 014 University of Tampere, Finland.
Email: tarja.poso@uta.fi
246
Youth Justice 10(3)
closed accommodation. The arguments are still the same: the child’s best interests versus
restricting the child’s rights. The practice of special care that forms the topic of this article
is one example of this. Special care became an established practice in Finland in the early-
2000s, and since 2006, it has been regulated by law. The care in question is a restrictive
intervention enabled by the Child Welfare Act. An absolute prerequisite for this interven-
tion is considered to be that it should serve the child’s best interests. By virtue of the leg-
islation, special care can be resorted to, among other situations, in order to interrupt a
vicious circle of crime that a child or young person has ended up in. Special care is imple-
mented by restricting the child’s right to free movement and social contacts in closed
institutional space. However, implementing a child’s best interests by restricting his or her
rights is far from being a straightforward or undisputed matter.
The article aims to show that closed accommodation – such as special care – should not
only be studied in relation to the child’s best interests, needs and rights, but also as part of
its societal context. The societal context makes understandable the meanings intended
when speaking of needs, interests or rights. The Finnish example sheds light on societal
solutions that emphasize the welfare approach to young people’s problems. The article
shows that the welfare approach is not without contradictions and that welfare may turn
into a punishment, especially in the experience of the young themselves. The welfare
framework may also lead to less vigilance in controlling and monitoring the implementa-
tion of closed accommodation.
The article is based on a report on special care in Finland (Kekoni et al., 2008), which
studied the practice of special care about one year after the relevant legislation had been
passed. The data used includes official statistics, interviews with authorities, and inter-
views with young people and professionals in special care units. The best that the data can
enable are preliminary and indicative observations, since the activity only started recently
and comprehensive data on it is not available. The observations are studied as part of the
Finnish social response to the problems of young people, and they are contrasted and
compared with existing international research.
The welfare approach to juvenile problems
Internationally, closed accommodation for children and young people is located in the
framework of either youth justice or child protection. Most frequently, children and young
people are placed in closed institutions under the discretion and mandate of juvenile
courts, because of having committed crimes. Another cause of placement in closed accom-
modation may be that the children’s behaviour endangers their own development or safety
or that their growth environment is otherwise at risk. In this case, the decisions are gener-
ally made on the basis of child protection. Completely closed accommodation units are
relatively rare in child protection, but their existence can clearly be noted. According to
some contemporary estimates, they might even have increased in number (Smith and
Milligan, 2004). In addition, closed accommodation units for children and young people
also exist in psychiatry and disability services.
Pösö et al.
247
The above categories can be identified as a general way of responding to problem
behaviour in children and young people: depending on the country, society’s approach is
based either on care and education or on criminal sanctions. In certain contexts, these
prioritizations have been conceptualized as justice and welfare models (e.g. Harrikari,
2006; Hill et al., 2007; Morris and McIsaac, 1978; Muncie, 2004: 250-270). In line with
the other Nordic countries, the welfare model has been applied in Finland for over a cen-
tury (Dahl, 1985). Timo Harrikari (2008) describes the Nordic welfare model as follows:
The roots of Nordic uniqueness are identifiable in the late 19th century as the first child welfare
acts were implemented in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Current Nordic juvenile justice sys-
tems are consistent within what can be described as a Nordic ‘welfare model’. The age of
criminal liability is 15 in all Nordic states. Juvenile courts do not exist and a range of specific
principles and provisions governing youth justice procedures and sanctions are enforced within
the criminal justice system (up to the age of 21). The institutions of child protection and crimi-
nal justice function side by side. The primary role of local child welfare boards, child protection
institutions and social work professionals regarding juvenile crime are defining characteristics
of the Nordic model.
It has been said that in Finland, the line drawn between a penal system and social welfare is
fairly clear; this is only beginning to change at the moment, as the purposes and objectives
of the recently enacted juvenile punishment are being established (Marttunen, 2008: 13).
The difference between the justice and welfare models lies not only in the definition of
the main actors (child protection vs. juvenile court), but also significantly in how children
and young people’s problems are understood. While the one stresses an interpretation of
problems as social or psychological symptoms, the other stresses the problems as (more
or less rational) choices of the perpetrator.
In practice, the justice and the welfare models cannot always be clearly separated, as they
may also overlap with regard to practices and procedures. In some countries – such as
Sweden (Levin, 1998) – there are certain closed accommodation units for minors that can
accept children on the basis of both criminal and child protection grounds, and the same
kind of care is arranged for both. The practice shows that even if the institutions that decide
about the placement may differ, the forms and objectives of closed accommodation for
young people are regarded as similar. This observation has been made by many, including
Matti Marttunen (2008), who compared the Finnish, the British and the German responses
to juvenile crime. In addition, due to their situations, children and young people may be
individually linked to both the criminal justice and the child protection systems, in which
case they cannot be clearly ‘classified’ under either model (McGhee and Waterhouse, 2008).
In certain countries, closed accommodation for children and young people forms a
separate and fairly clear-cut entity as a concept, a practice and a part of the service and
control system for children and young people (Allen, 2006; Beckley and O’Sullivan,
2007; Bullock and Little, 1991; Goldson, 2007; Milligan and Stevens, 2006). Finland is
one of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial