Abstract:
This working paper has reviewed cross-national datasets for the general population and available national data and other relevant (grey and academic) literature concerned with young people in care and care leavers in the three study countries. The aim is not evaluative; i.e. not to determine which country does ‘best’. Rather, the paper seeks to provide a situated understanding of the multi-dimensional complexity of transitions out of ‘care’ and of ‘outcomes’ for children and young people with experience of care, and hence to enable a contextualised understanding of the diver-sity of young people’s lives and experiences. In terms of the study as a whole, the analysis pre-sented here aims to provide a resource that will aid interpretation of the material generated in mul-ti-method qualitative longitudinal interviews with young adults, gaining a perspective on choice and chance by understanding biographical experiences within structural contexts (Thomson and Holland, 2002), and illuminating different layers of context in cross-national comparison (Brannen and Nilsen, 2011). Consequently, the underpinning aim of this working paper has been primarily descriptive, and we have not provided a substantive discussion of cross-country variations. Nonetheless, the material presented raises questions for exploration in further analysis, including the qualitative material generated in our own research. As noted in the study background, the international literature highlights a heightened risk of dis-advantages for care-experienced adults in relation to a range of factors, including physical and mental health, security of housing, and education and employment. However, these risks function (and are mitigated or exacerbated) within wider frameworks of influence, including child welfare systems and the broader state provision, shaping the social, economic and cultural contexts of individual lives. The three countries chosen for this study represent two examples of the Nordic welfare model and one neoliberal welfare regime (cf. Esping-Andersen, e.g. 1990). Unsurprisingly, there are more similarities between Denmark and Norway than with England, though there are of course variations among all three countries. At the risk of oversimplifying complex data sets, we can see from Eurostat data that the Nordic countries do better than England on most indicators of social disadvantage, and that they invest more in social protection for children and families. Participation in tertiary education is also funded to a higher level in both Denmark and Norway, whereas the public loan model in England means that young people graduate from university with considerable financial debts. Research in all three countries highlights concern about educational attainment for care leavers, relative to the general population, but differences in education systems among the countries raise further questions. In particular, it is striking that both the Norwegian and Danish systems embed more temporal flexibility than the English system – in opportunities to take an extra year of study or to extend studies over a longer period. The Norwegian system has the greatest possibilities for flexibility, including the option of changing study programme. Regardless of overall differences in educational performance relative to the general population, these patterns raise critical questions about the relative (in-)flexibility of educational systems for young people who are in or leaving care. Compared to the two Nordic countries, care leavers in England will meet different obstacles on their way through secondary and post-16 education, with fewer possibilities to get back on track. Thus, distinct questions arise. In Norway (and to a lesser extent Denmark), do young peo-ple in and after care have the support and resources that they need to take advantage of flexible possibilities? What support is required to cope with the relative inflexibility in the English system (e.g. if placement moves mean changing exam boards)? In all three countries, educational path-ways may well be disrupted by additional challenges associated with other kinds of instabilities in young people’s lives – such as changes in placement, emergent or ongoing health needs and family relationships. Thus, the (relative) flexibility of systems, and the availability of resources to manage possibilities for flexibility, are likely to be crucial factors in educational trajectories. The Eurostat data presented in Table 3.1 remind us to recognise the experience of care leavers as young people who are part of a wider society, and thus help to show how risks may accumulate for particularly disadvantaged groups in our society. For example, it is relatively common – espe-cially in England – for young people in their 20s to live in their parental home, and for those who can benefit from familial support this is likely to buffer against risks associated with debt and insecure or precarious employment. Entitlements to support after leaving care vary across the three countries, and there is no univer-sal entitlement to support for care-experienced young adults beyond their early twenties. Com-pared to the two Nordic countries, England has a more developed policy framework in relation to support for care leavers, although (as discussed above) the restrictive legal definition of ‘care leaver’ means fewer entitlements to support for those with less stability in their care pathways. Moreover, support for care leavers through entitlement to remain in placement is a relatively new initiative in England and still does not apply to residential care. Both Norway and Denmark have a slightly longer history of enabling young adults to stay on in placement post-18, although this often happens informally; the two Scandinavian countries also appear to have more stability in placements than England (with the caveat that directly comparable data are not available). It seems quite likely that these patterns in part relate to use of long-term foster care rather than do-mestic adoption as the primary route to permanence for children in care. Accounts from young adults indicate that stability may contribute to informal support from carers or professionals, be-yond statutory requirements or the end of a placement (Bakketeig and Backe-Hansen, 2018). These patterns also need to be understood in the context of differences between England and the two Nordic countries in the relative role of targeted support entitlements for care leavers (empha-sised in English policy), in comparison with universal entitlements through state (rather than child welfare) systems in Denmark and Norway (see also Jackson and Cameron, 2014). A growing literature provides documentation that risk of disadvantage for care-experienced adults is complex, involving the intersection of experiences before, during and after placement (e.g. Vinnerljung, 1996; Courtney, Hook and Lee, 2012; Rebbe et al., 2017). Furthermore, a significant body of international research highlights that insufficient resources and assistance are provided for young adults leaving care (e.g. Hjort and Backe-Hansen, 2008; Lerch and Stein, 2010; National Audit Office, 2015). In all three study countries, interagency collaboration is likely to play a critical role in enabling care-experienced young people to access the support they need. For example, young people in all three countries may require referral from child welfare services to gain access to mental health support. It is beyond the scope of this review to evaluate cross-national variation in the resourcing and accessibility of these services, and the work of the Milestone Consortium (2017) indicates common challenges across countries. Nonetheless, it is of note that in Norway (unlike England) Child Welfare Services may cover the costs of mental health support for young people who have been in care, and the differences between England and Denmark in rates of child and adolescent psychiatrists noted in the Milestone survey (Ibid.) are likely to have implica-tions for the availability of specialist support. The overarching aim of our research is to build understanding of positive outcomes for care-experienced young adults, by learning from the diverse experiences of people who have been in care and who do well in terms of the objective (and normative) indicators of engagement in edu-cation, employment and training (see for example, Bakketeig and Backe-Hansen, 2018; Boddy, 2018; Boddy et al., forthcoming). The material discussed in this review provides a context for understanding their lives. Situating their accounts of their lived experience in relation to the cross-national analysis presented here illuminates the ways in which their experience relates to that of the wider populations of care-experienced young people and similarly aged young people in the general population. Thus, this documentary analysis contributes to understanding the nature and timing of support and other resources that have helped them to achieve in spite of the challenges they may have faced. It also helps to problematize – and theorise – the concept of ‘outcomes’ for children in care and care leavers, attending to diversity in experiences across contexts and over time, and highlighting gaps in data collection within and across countries. What is easily measur-able is not always what matters in understanding what it means to “do well” for young people who live through complex multidimensional experiences of transition through their country’s care sys-tem.
