Youth Care in the Netherlands: an overview of
government policy and program culture
In this lecture, I will
take you on a tour of the government policy with regard to Youth Care in the
Netherlands, as it was given shape to in the last fifty years. I will describe
which developments have been important and have led to the present policy. I
will try to make clear to you what the consequences are of that policy for the
study programmes in the Netherlands. I will show you the tremendous growth
these study programs have experienced. As a starting point, I take the
attention for child abuse as it has manifested itself in the last 10 years in the
Netherlands.
Is government policy in Youth
Care an independent concept? Independent in the sense of separate from social reality?
Or is government policy with regard to Youth Care an expression of social reality?
Is government policy lagging behind social reality or does government policy create favourable
conditions? The government only too readily wants us to believe that the latter
is the case, but the question is whether this is true. Is the game around
government, society, committed workers in youth care and developers of study
programmes not much more intricate?
Child
abuse
In December
1998, Jan Willems earned his Ph.D. at the Dutch Maastricht University with a
thesis entitled “Wie zal de opvoeders opvoeden”(Who
is going to educate the educators?). In his thesis he exposes by means of the UN-Treaty the Rights of the Child
the little effective approach of child abuse in the Netherlands. A workshop was
organised about this thesis on October
20,1999. During this workshop professor Van Dantzig asked a question about why
there was so little political and social attention for the approach to end child
abuse. Making a comparison with women’s emancipation and the gay movement, Van Dantzig
thought the answer might lie in the direction of the lack of any
extra-parliamentary action for the banning to child abuse. "Everybody is
against it and too little happens."
Early 2000, Defence for
Children International took the initiative for a meeting to discuss this theme.
This resulted in the group RAAK (Reflection and Action group Approach Child Abuse),
which will try to give a boost to the social and political discussion and action
for the approach of child abuse.
In the first manifest that
was written in late 2000 by the initiators of RAAK we find factual
evidence that is shocking for the Netherlands:
Every year at least 50.000 children
are abused in the Netherlands. At least fifty children die. This involves basic
figures. The numbers also depend on the question whether the line is drawn with
serious or very serious abuse. And estimating this differs from child to child and
from witness (bystander or professional) to witness.
The statement of principles
signed by a large number of social and scientific bodies and worked out in
detail was as follows:
The approach to end child
abuse should be much higher on the political and social agenda. A lot happens, but not enough by far.
That is what the figures show. An attack plan should be drawn up to fight back
child abuse. Child abuse is the most serious violation of the UN-Treaty on the
Rights of the Child in the Netherlands.(citaition).
A History
of Youth Care and Child Protection in the Netherlands
In their overview of youth care
and youth policy in the Netherlands, Van Montfoort and Tilanus paint the history
of Youth Care and Youth Protection by means of a number of anchor points.
The first orphanage in the
Netherlands was founded in Utrecht in 1491. In the 16th Century, many
other cities followed this initiative. Initially, the circumstances in the
orphanages were bad and of course not comparable to the present standards. Government
intervention can be seen in the Netherlands in the 17th and 18th Centuries. From the early 19th Century more and more attention was paid to criminal,
neglected and problem children. Orphanages were slowly replaced by houses of
correction, where the education of the youngsters was central. This no longer
involved day care only, but education was offered too. In that time, parents
had complete control over their children and so, could take children from the houses
of correction to make them participate in the labor process.
Government intervention finally
led to the 1901 Child Protection Legislation being implemented. In these acts
the possibility was provided to end parental authority to protect the child. In
the acts juvenile penal law was also provided for. The legal foundation of child
protection was laid in these acts. We see in child protection as it still holds
a clear connection between what is called by Van Montfoort and Tilanus: the
endangered child and the dangerous child. A large number of those working in the
child protection organisation have duties in the field of juvenile penal law
and the child’s civil protection. In 1922 the placing in custody was introduced.
With the placing in custody the parental authority was not taken away. It was,
and is still used as a preventive measure. With the placing in custody a
separate juvenile judge was also introduced in legal practice
Still, the conditions in the
boarding schools that the children stayed in were very bad. In the thirties of
last century the development of the boarding schools and the work in it
stagnated. Many boarding schools
were closed in World War II.
In the period following World
War II, child protection was innovated on many fronts. Ample attention was paid
to diagnostics, treatment plans, and education methods that focused on specific
target groups. Very soon, there were study programs for specialized workers in child
protection. However, a clear planning of all these activities was not under
discussion immediately after the war. Only in the 60’s this changed. From 1966,
we see that a youth policy is gradually developed that affects almost all sectors
of society. The government starts talking with the young. Policymaking and policy
execution are decentralised to the local authorities.
In the late 60’s and early 70’s,
criticism on traditional social work to youngsters increased. Social work was reproached
for working oppressively. The number of homes quickly decreased in the 70’s and
were replaced by smaller units where a kind of family life was established as much as possible. Social work no
longer took place in residential institutions only, rather, there was more
emphasis on ambulant forms of social work and early forms of parenting support.
Especially, the juridical child protection received much criticism. Criticism
on social work and child protection finally led to starting points in 1976 that
were formulated for a Youth Services Act. The starting points were, for many
politically involved people, too controversial or maybe even too progressive. Existing
ideas on what is good for our youngsters and which part the government, social
initiative and e.g. the churches had to play in this, could not just be cast to
the winds. Only in 1989, did the Youth Services Act become effective.
The Youth Services Act was, as
were many acts in post-war Holland, an act based on a number of compromises. The
starting points formulated in 1976 can be found in this Act however. The
following starting points are at the basis of the Youth Services Act:
1.
The social work has to take place as briefly as possible, as close by as
possible and as timely as possible. The effect of this starting point is much attention for prevention and a
preference for ambulant social work over (semi-)residential social work and for
foster care over placement in homes. Regionalisation of the youth services was
also opted for so that the help could generally be given as close as possible
to the home situation.
2.
Voluntary social work is preferred over juridical social work.
3.
Doing away with the compartmentalisation and fragmentation at executive level
by intensive cooperation of facilities (the facilities were mentioned by name
in the Act and the mentioned facilities were eligible for subsidy).
Although the Act was certainly
an important step ahead, grave objections were also attached to it. The
limitative summing up of the facilities, e.g. frustrated innovations. In the
Act, facilities that were more about public health (youth and child psychiatry)
had not been included; neither did facilities for mentally handicapped children
get a place in the Act. The connection with youth welfare and education was
completely ignored. An even bigger problem occurred, however, with the
implementation of the act. The regionalisation and the division of the budgets
for youth social work produced endless discussions. The starting point was that
the compartmentalisation and fragmentation had to be overcome. Unfortunately,
this was never worked out well.
In the political discussion about
the realisation and the implementation of the act, by referring to the Treaty on
the Rights of the Child a right to youth services was advocated. However, as
the Dutch government was afraid of “open end” financing this right was never included,
as opposed to the “Children’s Act” in England and the “Kinder- und Jugend Hilfe
Gesetz” in Germany.
In reply to the still existing
compartmentalisation, fragmentation, and poor organisation of the care for youngsters,
in 1994 it was proposed by a government committee to see that youth services, youth
protection, and mental healthcare was available for tthe young as a whole. In
1994, the concept of Youth Care was introduced. The municipality’s
responsibility for the preventive youth policy was emphasised. The regions
remained responsible for the youth services.
In the second half of the 90’s,
all over the country Youth Care offices were founded. It is true there was much
consultation and cooperation between youth services and youth protection and
authorities and health insurance companies in each region, but there was no
national attuning. The Youth Care offices differed considerably. Things changed
from virtual (as a system of arrangements) to real, and with a great deal of
variation in the latter. All initiatives were ultimately brought together in a Youth
Care Act.
The Youth Care Act that became
effective in 2005 speaks for the first time about a right to Youth Care for youngsters
and their parents. The Youth Care office gets a legal basis and is as a result
unambiguously organized. There is also a clear division between the Youth Care offices
and the care providers. The Youth Care office is to be the central access to
the youth services, youth protection, mental healthcare for the young, and the
care for youngsters with a slight mental handicap. The funding is adjusted too.
The work of the Youth Care offices
concentrates on the deciding what youth care clients need. These clients then choose
which institution they want to get the care from. The executors of the work in
care become in the new system (for it meanwhile involves drastic changes) care
providers with a competitive position towards other care providers. The
subsidisation of institutions as it developed in the past is slowly replaced by
a system of a fixed price per service.
What stuck after the coming
about and implementation of the Youth Services Act discussed above also holds
now that existing structures are not simply overthrown. Even in 2003 the
government established, in spite of the in 1994 detected compartmentalisation
and fragmentation, that youth policy was divided over at least seven ministries.
Unity in governmental policy was a long way off. Research into improvements
finally led to the setting up of a ministry for Youth and Family. This
so-called Program Ministry formulated in 2007 had the ambition to fight back
problems with parenting and growing up in our country by means of three main
themes:
1.
growing up takes place in a family
2.
converting to prevention: detecting and tackling problems sooner
3.
being non-committal is over
In the policy program attention
is paid to family policy, a healthy life style and a healthy youth culture up
to and including the streamlining of youth care and youth protection. The center
for Youth and Family will be the future contact for all parenting problems in municipalities
and quarters. The Youth Care office mentioned before threatens to disappear
again before it grew up.
Trends
Which trends can we see now in
the developments in youth policy?
Van der Laan and Van Montfoort described
in 1994 trends in care and welfare and trends in youth care, that are still
recognisable today.
1.
The first important trend emerging from the picture painted is of course
the increasing government intervention throughout the years. Until the start of
World War II (and also in the first 20 years following it) private initiative was
the most important decider of policy, even though the word policy is actually
out of place here. On the basis of very general guidelines initiatives were
developed in our country, causing a hotchpotch of facilities in the field of child
protection to come into being. From the second half of the 60’s of last century,
government intervention increased. The first building stones for a youth policy
can be seen in the Youth Services Act and later all of Youth Care was covered
in integral legislation. Working this out in regional youth care offices and Centres
for Youth and Families is the latest trend, which tries to cover the whole of youth
care.
2.
An important substantial trend is extramuralisation. This is not a trend
limited to youth care only. In psychiatry and care of the mentally handicapped
we see this too.
Since the 70’s, the policy in Youth Care has been focused on the
decreasing of placements into care and on the solving in one’s own environment
of problems and childrearing. It is not only a policy issue, but clear choices
are also made when the funding is involved. Funding of ambulant help programs and
programs aimed at prevention and light, early help get priority. As emphasized before
it involves youth services that are “as light as possible, take place as
briefly as possible and as close to home as possible”. This principle has for
the first time been laid down in the Youth Services Act and is also mentioned in
the Youth Care act.
3.
A striking trend is the decentralisation of powers to lower authorities.
The already mentioned main trend of increasing government intervention has restrictions
when executed. The work in youth care takes place in provinces and
municipalities. The national government sets frameworks. Those frameworks,
including the accompanying financial basis and allocation of resources (as an
example, I mention the setting up of youth care offices and Centres for Youth
and Family) can be seen as centrally directed elements in youth care. The
execution in provinces and,increasingly in municipalities too, are an example
of decentralisation that has not ended yet. It is clear that the more administrative
responsibilities are decentralised, the more direction there will be at the executive
institutions.
Content
of the Youth policy
The government policy in all
areas has consequences for parenting and growing up. Youth Care can be seen
again in almost all sectors of current society. We see the following important developments
that are developed nationally.
·
In the early 60’s the family was seen as the cornerstone of society. After
a period when the government interfered less in the family, we now see (in the
year 2006) a renewed interest in family policy. Where earlier exploratory notes
were still mainly about the combination of family and participation
in the labour market, now attention is mainly paid to childrearing. Parenting
support is considered a self-evident basic facility.
·
There is an increasingly profiled policy with regard to the income policy
for families with underage children. Educators are entitled to child benefit
and a child rebate in income tax. The income development for families with children
is relatively more favourable than for households without children.
·
In the social environment much attention is paid to the space young children
occupy. One aims at sufficient outside-play space and facilities for sporting activities
are situated in the vicinity of where people live.
·
There is, of course, an extensive net of facilities around education. Day-care
for children is striven for from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. In education itself, much attention
is paid to special-needs policy and early school-leaving. Child-care has
tremendously increased in size, both demand and supply.
·
A healthy lifestyle is continuously brought to the population’s attention.
This does not only involve eating and drinking, but also the promotion of sporting
activities. Much attention is paid to the dangers of drug use, smoking and alcohol
use.
On municipal level we see policy
that is mainly aimed at prevention.
·
Of old Youth Health Care was organised by municipalities.
·
From the early nineties the term parenting support is increasingly used.
Programmes with regard to parenting support grow and are developed along lines
the way we also see in other countries.
·
In youth work we see a shifting from activities aimed at recreation,
encounter, sports and information and advice to more educational activities. One
speaks of “local educationalists”.
·
There is permanent attention for youth unemployment.
·
Prevention of youth criminality is an important issue in local policy.
Police, justice and bodies of care and welfare closely cooperate in this.
The intention is to coordinate
all common activities in the centers for Youth and Family. This center has to
become the joining of local facilities
and will also become the coordination point towards the other facilities (such
as the youth services and the regional youth care offices). In order not to
make the care chain extra long again an electronic child file will be worked
with, from 2009 on.,
Youth
Care and study programs
It will be clear that the attention
for youngsters and the sketched development of youth care resulted in an
increasing number of study programs in these areas. Immediately after World War
II, the first study programs for specialized workers in child protection came
into being. These study programs were followed by programs in the field of youth
services and in them more and more specialisations were developed. The study
programs started to pay attention to child and youth psychiatry, care of mentally
handicapped children, etc. The number of study programs in welfare for day-care
of young children increased explosively. Especially in the last group, we also
see a permanent call for refresher courses focusing on educational duties. The last
10 years the growth of study programs and students (concurrent with the attention
to growing up and parenting policy) only seems to increase. The following figures
show the numbers of entering students enrolling with the Educational Studies study
programmes in the Netherlands. This involves higher professional education:
Intake fulltime
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
Fontys Hs.
|
173
|
236
|
276
|
362
|
377
|
Hs. INHOLLAND
|
175
|
210
|
165
|
185
|
166
|
Hs. Rotterdam
|
72
|
111
|
134
|
172
|
223
|
Hs. Utrecht
|
|
|
|
|
154
|
Hs. van Amsterdam
|
63
|
110
|
110
|
171
|
188
|
Hs. van Arnhem en
Nijmegen
|
130
|
180
|
258
|
340
|
355
|
Noordelijke Hs.
Leeuwarden
|
86
|
102
|
130
|
172
|
193
|
Total
|
699
|
949
|
1.073
|
1.402
|
1.656
|
These figures are illustrative
for the whole sector.
Apart from the parallel between
the attention in policy and the size of the study programs and number of students
we see a clear parallel in the content focus of the study programs
The second trend that has been
described here in youth policy is extramuralisation. One works more and more
ambulantly and the attention for prevention and parenting support close to the families
is increasing. Study programs traditionally focusing more on “special needs” shift
their focus to parenting support and prevention and information. We see this
development too in the content focus of the master study programs. The Master’s
Degree program in Educational Studies in Rotterdam calls itself the master program
“Growing up in a big city”. The strong increase in the number of institutions and
the need for cooperation between institutions in the Youth Care chain requires
also on the professional master level a different study program. From 2003, the
professional field insists on professional Master’s Degree programs that can
give direction to “change in educational situations”. The links between the executive
level and the management and policy-deciding level are now lacking in many
cases. Many professional Master’s-programs in Educational Studies focus on positions
and work content in that border area.
The described trend with regard
to the decentralisation of policy and powers results in creating a demand for professionals
who are able to develop on a local level and to give further shape to the work
in the centres for Youth and Family in consultation with the local authorities.
I have tried to sketch for you
how there is in the Netherlands in the field of Youth Care, a continuous
interaction between the executive work and a following government policy, a policy-formulating
government, and following executive work. I have described to you the reaction
of the study programs to the developments at policy level and at the level of executive
work. One important aspect has not yet received the attention it deserves,
however, and that is the influence of the social debate on themes in youth care
on the policy developments.
I started with the initiative
of Defence for Children and the working group RAAK. The attention for child
abuse that they put on the political map has led to investigations and to direct
action at ministerial level. By the ministry of Youth and Family a number of
measures have been announced that have to prevent child abuse in the future. You
might also say that it is distressing that things had to go that far.
Paradox
Much attention for the
rust-preventing capacity of the bodywork of cars results in cars lasting longer
and not winding up on the scrapheap so soon. As a European and lover of French
cars, I was able to follow the whole development at close quarters and to my
complete satisfaction! An effect like that is also to be seen in Youth Care.
This is sad; and is the big
paradox in Youth policy and Youth Care.
When we look to the described trend
of extramuralisation in youth care and the attention for light, ambulant and preventive
forms of help, we can indeed establish that these forms of help have been much
extended, but at the same time we see that this has not led to a proportional
decrease of the number of youngsters in residential facilities. And the number
of child protection measures is continuously increasing. Since 1990 the number
doubled. In the past years, the capacity of juridical youth institutions has
doubled to 2,600 places and according to prognoses of the Ministry of Justice
this number will increase to 3,350 in 2010! The number of clinical places in
youth and child psychiatry too is still increasing.
In the manifest of the RAAK-group
that came up early in this lecture, figures were mentioned for child abuse that
were shocking for Dutch society. Even more shocking were the outcomes of extensive
national research executed in the following years. Research conducted among
professionals by researchers from Leiden University in 2007 shows that in 2005
107,200 children between the ages of 0 and 17 were victims of child abuse. Research
by the Free University in Amsterdam among youngsters age 12 to 16, led to an
estimate of 160,700 children who have been victim of child abuse. Both
investigations are endorsed by the Youth and Family minister. The estimate of
107,200 child abuse cases by the Leiden researchers the minister considers to
be a minimum.
You can perhaps predict the
reaction to these figures: an action plan has been developed and extra resources
are made available. The action plan fits in with the trends mentioned, namely, much
attention for prevention and information, small-scaleness in RAAK-regions and attention
for high-risk groups. The following starting points have been formulated.
Fighting child abuse comprises:
·
Preventing the occurrence of child
abuse.
·
Detecting child abuse as soon as
possible when it does occur.
·
Then reacting adequately to this and
stopping the abuse, with social work, youth protection, penal law or combinations
of it.
·
Of course the harmful effects of the abuse have to be limited as much as
possible.
In the Action plan “Children Safe
At Home” is described how the ministry is going to tackle child abuse. The five
most important activities are:
-
National introduction of the RAAK-approach: on April 21, 2008 minister Rouvoet kicked it
off.
-
Promoting the use of the “reporting-code child abuse”. This is a
protocol to support professionals with the detecting of and reacting to (suspicions
of) child abuse.
-
A big campaign in late 2008 to make all inhabitants of the Netherlands aware
of their responsibility with the
reporting of child abuse.
-
Deploying penal law.
-
Speedier social work for children; this has ground in common with the Better
Protected program. Better Protected aims at making the route between the first
report of child abuse to the judicial sentence go more quickly.
I may have painted a rather
sombre picture of Youth Care in Netherlands. It seems as if I have forgotten
the most important trend: there seems to be a direct relationship between the amount
of attention and resources for Youth Care and the size of the problems with
parenting and growing up. In my opinion, it is our duty that when we speak in our
study programs about evidence-based research or practice-based research, we are
aware that this should also become visible in social reality.
Literature:
Laan, G van der. (1994). Van turbulentie tot
stroomlijning. Enige beschouwingen over de interventiemix in de zorgsector. Sociale Interventie, 3, 4, pp. 139
– 150.
Montfoort, A.J. van. (1994). Jeugdzorg
tussen markt en regie. Sociale
interventie, 3, 4, pp. 151 – 163.
Tilanus, C.P.G. en Montfoort A.J. van. (2007). Jeugdzorg en jeugdbeleid. Amsterdam:
SWP-uitgeverij,
Reflectie - en Actiegroep
Aanpak Kindermishandeling RAAK. (2000). Kindermishandeling. Een zaak van volwassenen.
Willems, J.C.M. (1999). Wie
zal de Opvoeders Opvoeden? Meppel:. Boom,
