Since the 1990s, the media, authorities and researchers, have documented gross failures to protect and safeguard children in out-of-home ‘care’ under the child welfare services. Internationally, physical, psychological as... [ view full abstract ]
Since the 1990s, the media, authorities and researchers, have documented gross failures to protect and safeguard children in out-of-home ‘care’ under the child welfare services. Internationally, physical, psychological as well as sexual abuse, of children in out-of-home care has been revealed, as well as neglect. In Norway, the first stories about gross abuse of children in residential care, came forward to the public press already in the 1880s, when the children’s home ‘Toftes Gave’ were criticized for gross abuse of children. Some years later (in 1907), an employee, and a teacher at Bastøy reform school for underprivileged boys, anonymously, published a book telling about harsh abusive ‘care’ where he worked. Although the book attracted attention, and raised discussions about the brutality of the `care` of children, years passed before the authorities really acknowledged the suffering of survivors of institutional abuse, and responded accordingly. First in 2005, the Norwegian parliament passed on an expanded and adapted gratia payment scheme for survivors. Since then, many municipalities have also responded to the historical abuse of children in out-of-home care, and have implemented local redress processes and schemes. However, what factors motivated the schemes? And what kind of responses was implemented? These are the questions explored in this presentation.
The objective of this presentation is twofold. First, I will present the Norwegian factors that motivated/ pushed forward the Norwegian responses to historic child abuse in the 1990s to early 2000s, whereas Norwegian authorities finally entered the pulpit and asked care leavers for an apology for abusive out-of-home care. I will explore how the schemes resonate with the needs of the survivors. The second aim is therefore to describe and discuss the content of the redress schemes.
The empirical study used a qualitative methodological approach. The data is based on qualitative in-depth interviews with previous ‘care’ leavers (n=12) and professionals (n=12) working with the redress schemes. Documents describing the statues of the schemes also constitute the data.
Results revealed that the push for, and development of redress schemes in Norway happened within a transnational, global, justice movement. Besides, several interconnected factors motivated the redress processes, whereas survivor testimonies and pressure from the media played an important role. Moreover, when examining the content of the schemes, findings reveal that the contents of the local redress schemes carried similar ‘quasi- legal’ procedurals. They all offered financial compensation and an apology to survivors who were placed in abusive and neglected care under the responsibility of the child welfare services.
Conclusions. A number of interconnected factors, including a shift in the understanding of children and childhood, which underpin the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), may better secure and protect children in care today. However, central in safeguarding children in out-of-home care, and in developing effective responses on institutional abuse of children, is a broad professional and political support in learning, acknowledging, respecting and not at least, monitoring children’s rights. Last, but not least, it is important to encourage ongoing discussions on quality demands in out-of-home care, and to implement effective responses to all kinds of abuse and neglect in care.
