Contracting 'Autonomy' of Young People: Ambivalences in Addressing Agency

Objective: The aim of this presentation is to show the paradox that arises when ‘autonomy’ and the way to ‘autonomy’ of young care leavers is subject to contractualisation. Our hypothesis is that agency of the young... [ view full abstract ]

Objective: The aim of this presentation is to show the paradox that arises when ‘autonomy’ and the way to ‘autonomy’ of young care leavers is subject to contractualisation. Our hypothesis is that agency of the young people is addressed in a very specific way.
Context: We will describe the context of the care system in Luxembourg in regard to transition. It is especially notwithstanding, as important laws and circulars that determine the context, are relatively recent (2008-2015). The analyses demonstrates the changing situation of the field, as a field in transition. Laws and circulars provide us information regarding the role of residential care and foster family organization, the role of the state and the role of young people. In Luxembourg, as well as in other countries, the age of 18 is determined as the mark of attaining majority. This age is also taken as the moment for preparing the leave of the institutional setting. In Luxembourg the goals for `autonomy` are defined in the ‘projet d’autonomisation’ and against these objectives the end of care is determined.
Method: Our focus lies on the agency of young people which inevitably correlates with the agency of professionals in a specific legislative context. Researching these relationalities we will present first results of an analysis of documents, expert interviews as well as interviews with young people that show ambivalences in addressing agency.
Results: This collection of first data allows us to see different paradoxes and a contradictory injunction to the young people. On the one hand they are seen as becoming adults very rapidly. On the other hand, they continue to be viewed as young people whose legal `projet d’autonomisation’ and the time for this is subjected to an institutional evaluation and perspective. Moreover, these relations are described with an idea of ‘autonomy’ and ‘participation’ of young people while simultaneously they are realized in a contract. In the institutional context the term ‘autonomy’ is used and set as the final goal of the work with young people. Consequentially ‘young adults’ have to leave the care system and take their own ‘responsibilities’. The expected autonomy is reified by contractual relations. These contracts include strict regulations and expectations as well as norms, which is contradictory to the term of ‘autonomy’. Further the process of becoming autonomous (‘autonomisation’) and its connectedness is neglected.
Conclusion: In the vocabulary of social care, agency is addressed in legal texts but in a contractual relation. We will try to discuss how young people live this ‘autonomy’ in contract and how professionals permit autonomy in this legal framework.