Objectives When a child is taken into care, the child becomes subjected to a public logic. The distinction between public and private ways of thinking is especially apparent when youths are leaving care, and this is the theme... [ view full abstract ]
Objectives
When a child is taken into care, the child becomes subjected to a public logic. The distinction between public and private ways of thinking is especially apparent when youths are leaving care, and this is the theme of my presentation. The aim of my presentation is to discuss implications of a dominant public logic when child welfare workers are planning for after care services. The presentation is based on my PhD research concerning the judgements of social workers regarding support for youth leaving care in Norway (Oterholm, 2015). When analyzing the judgments of social workers, the difference between public and private logics was a way of grasping the content of the social workers considerations.
In Norway the youth can be supported by Child Welfare Services until they reach 23 years of age. However, several young care leavers are only given support for a short period of time after turning 18, even though they often struggle with difficulties that could imply a need of further assistance.
Method
My study is based on qualitative interviews with social workers focused on their considerations regarding support for youth leaving care. Vignettes were used as part of the interviews. I interviewed social workers from Child Welfare Services and Social Services as well as young people who had left care. In this paper I only present data from the interviews with social workers in Child Welfare Services.
There are many ways of describing the difference between public and private logics. I have used the distinction between the concrete and the generalized other, described by Benhabib (1992), when analyzing the data. The relation towards the generalized other is dominated by formal equality and rights, and characterizes the public domain, while the relation towards the concrete other is dominated by the unique individual’s history, identity and feelings, and render the private domain.
Results
The analysis of the social workers judgement revealed an emphasis on their responsibility for youth in care, additionally; they described how they both tried to be flexible, and considerate of the individual’s situation and wishes. These considerations have similarities with a private logic. Concurrently, the social workers way of describing their decisions were dominated both by administrative language and how local routines had impact on possible support. In some instances such procedures made it impossible to get support after turning it down in the first place. These considerations point to a public way of thinking.
Another difference between private and public which were highlighted was the distinction between private and public relations while private relations are lasting, public relations are supposed to and are predetermined to end. Foster care is somewhere in between private and public logics. Even though the social workers tried to ensure that the youth had lasting relationships, they simultaneously, said they could not control the foster parent’s decisions.
Conclusion
The presentation discusses some of the differences between private and public support in the transition into adulthood, which are important to be aware of when taking children in to care, as well as when planning for after care services. Child Welfare Services are a public service which is obliged to follow rights and procedures, as well as take into consideration the concrete child’s best interest.
References
Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: gender, community and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Oterholm, I. (2015). Organisasjonens betydning for sosialarbeiders vurderinger, Senter for profesjonsstudier, Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus). Oslo.
Family foster care and adoption , Transition to adulthood from care
