| dc.description.abstract | This dissertation is a Master's thesis in Public Management, MPA at Trondheim Businesschool, NTNU, our 2018. The theme concerns whether it is possible to implement the sentences Act §12 into child welfare institutions with the target group 15-18 years. As of today children and young people in youth custody units are subject to Norwegian detention centers. Upon release, 2 out of 3 are released with the need for treatment. Waiting list for treatment is as long now as before.
My study shows that reforms and political signals indicate less grants and efforts for treatment and rehabilitation in prison. This implies a mandatory requirement for better cooperation across the sector and between agencies. Signals say that child welfare should be more responsible for criminal prosecution over those under the age of 18 who are sentenced to detention. Here is the distinction between the consideration of punishment and consideration for treatment.
The core activities of the child welfare service are about the individual and the child's rights where the system is obliged to take care of these rights in perspective the best interests of the child. The expectation of the role of child welfare may be contradictory in the difference between punishment and treatment, which is expected elements of both. Legally there are clear restrictions on the Sentencing Act and the Child Welfare Act. However, a potential approach is through individual treatment, against the child welfare taking care of punishment without breaking the objective between child welfare and correctional care.
The treatment offer for behavioural children is a demanding process. As of today, the child welfare service does not accommodate individual treatment methods for the children with the most serious problems, as part of those on §12 for amendment. Measures aimed at mental disorders have now come into force and one will see the effect of this on possible development in the area of substance abuse and future behaviour
Furthermore, I have emphasized how it is possible to change the zone between prison/detention and society in this task. Previous research shows that these measures, which should be prioritised, were actually held. A continuation of this thinking into society should be the basis for further development, also in the area of §12 atonement.
Through the survey, I have seen that §12 atonement is not practiced in child welfare institutions with the exception of the Foundation Fossum Collective, a private child welfare institution in Spydeberg, with housing and treatment facilities for young drug addicts. The foundation has tools and methods that they do not have in common with others where they have had success with a number of persons in treatment, ref- §12 with positive results. So theoretically it is possible to implement the sentences Act §12 into child welfare institutions, but there is still a long way to go for treatment options for the most demanding behavioural children.
All my respondents want more development around the theme and increased cooperation, because one sees it's useful. As of today, the cooperation between child welfare and criminal care is minimal. If it is to be developed in the field, there is a need for closer cooperation. Early intervention and addressing the problem before escalating into greater crime. At the same time, it is about providing a wider ranging offer for children and young people who have different needs and requirements, because that offer today is not good enough. | nb_NO |
