sou · GZB361 · 2011-09-29 00:00:00 — Detta betyder att samhället tar ansvar för att placerade barn och unga får leva och bo i miljöer som stärker deras utvecklingsmöjligheter och att de får den vård och omsorg som alla barn och unga har rätt till, vilket inkluderar hälsovård och en fungerande skolgång. Verksam tillsyn och uppföljning avgörande samlade erfarenheter pekar på att det som framförallt kommer att avgöra om barn och unga i dagens och morgon- dagens barnavård ska kunna skyddas mot vanvård och en ogynn- sam framtida utveckling är en fungerande tillsyn och uppföljning. Det mest uppenbara, att vid tillsynsbesöken tala med barnet, har i utredningens intervjuer visat sig ske alltför sällan. Tillsynsperso- nalen måste också ha kompetens i att samtala med barn och unga. Barnet måste känna förtroende om det ska våga berätta hur det har det. Tillsynspersonalen måste ha en oberoende ställning gentemot familjehemmet eller institutionspersonalen. I flera av utredningens intervjuer har det framkommit att inspektören varit bekant med vårdaren och det blev därför ännu svårare för barnet att anförtro sig. Det bör också finnas en beredskap för att omplacera ett barn. På frågan om intervjupersonerna skulle berättat om vad de var utsatta för om de visste att de skulle tas därifrån har svaret ofta blivit jakande. Dags att omsätta kunskaperna i praktik Utredningen kan konstatera att samhällets barn- och ungdomsvård har god kännedom om hur vården ska vara utformad. Det finns kunskap, många utredningar, revisions- och tillsynsrapporter, som pekat på risker för placerade barn och unga och det finns kun- skap om vad som fungerar stärkande. Utmaningen som barna- vården står inför är snarare hur dessa kunskaper ska omsättas i lokal praktisk handling. Det som gör det möjligt att barn och unga utsätts för vanvård är en kombination av frånvaron av ett individuellt personligt ansvar hos alla dem som är involverade i barnavården, från politiker till tjänstemän på alla nivåer. Det är också bristfällig förståelse för att ett placerat barn löper risk för att bli utsatt för vanvård i olika former. Ansvar för en säkrare samhällsvård Utredningen anser att socialnämnden tillsammans med den kom- munala ledningen har ett ansvar att kontinuerligt tillföra verksam- heten nödvändiga resurser, bevaka att det finns god kompetens och att följa upp säkerheten för barn i samhällsvård. Nämnden har en skyldighet att hålla sig informerad om tjänstemännens arbete och om situationen för barn och unga i kommunen. Genom att, förutom chefer och verksamhetsansvariga, även tala med dem som direkt arbetar ute i verksamheten och som träffar barn och unga kan nämnden försäkra sig om att regelbundet få aktuell information när den ska fatta beslut som rör barn- och ungdomsvården. Slutrapporten innehåller få förslag. Utredningen anser att det inte finns anledning att upprepa alla goda och redan kända förslag som tidigare utredningar lämnat. Om regeringen vill förbättra säkerheten för samhällsvårdade barn finns det redan en mängd föreslagna åtgärder som inte behöver upprepas här.7 var av sina direktiv förhindrad att lämna förslag om ursäkt och ersättning för dem som vanvårdats efter 1980. Det fanns inte några motiveringar till detta i utredningens direktiv. De som vanvårdades efter 1980 skulle med Upprättelse- utredningens förslag uteslutas ur gruppen som omfattas av ursäkt och ersättning. Alla som blivit utsatta för övergrepp och allvarlig försummelse vars ärenden är preskriberade bör omfattas av olika förslag till upprättelse. 7 har flera utredningar, förutom vår, presenterat förslag för att höja säkerheten för samhällsvårdade barn, exempelvis , SOU 2007:82, Samordnad och tydlig tillsyn av , , SOU 2009:68, Lag om stöd och skydd för barn och unga, , SOU 2011:9, Barnen som samhället svek – åtgärder med anledning av övergrepp och allvarliga försummelser i samhällsvården. Det vore önskvärt med; förståelse hos varje arkivhandläggare för aktens betydelse för den enskildes rätt till sitt ursprung, bättre kun- skap om vilka akter som ska bevaras hos socialförvaltningarna och enhetlig bedömning/jämnare kvalité på sekretessprövningen. Det bör kunna ske genom att; en nationell helpdesk inrättas av i samarbete med lämpligt stadsarkiv, att det ingår avsnitt om sociala akter på arkivkurser och på kurser för socialarbetare, att det inrättas en hemsida med samlad information och hjälp till både handläggare och tidigare placerade, liknande den som finns i . Regeringen bör ge i uppdrag att inrätta en nationell helpdesk till stöd för kommunernas arkivhandläggare och personer som varit placerade av den sociala barnavården. Vid ett omhändertagande av ett barn går samhället in som för- älder. Kommunerna bör därför att etiskt/moraliska skäl prioritera uppföljningen av hur barnets vistelse i familjehem eller institution. Samtal med barn bör alltid föras, men det är barnet som själv avgör vad det vill svara på för frågor. utvidgning till att gälla även den sociala barnavården innebär att kan följa utvecklingen och sammanställa periodvisa rapporter om allvarliga missförhållanden. bör i sin tillsyn av kommunerna särskilt granska om de har kvalitetssystem för uppföljningen av barn och ungas placering i familjehem och HVB samt hur uppföljningen utförs i kommunerna. bör också presentera årliga rapporter till reger- ingen som visar hur har tillämpats vad avser barn och unga i samhällsvård. The Swedish Inquiry on Child Abuse and Neglect in Institutions and (called the Abuse and Neglect Inquiry below) was only initiated, as in several other countries, after people told their stories to the media about their experiences of exploitation and abuse during their stay in childrens homes or homes. The TV documentary Stulen Barndom (Stolen Childhood), where six middle-aged men told their stories about systematic violations, violence and sexual abuse during their stay at Skärsbo boys insti- tution in , was broadcast in . This docu- mentary gave rise to the appointment of the Abuse and Neglect Inquiry in 2006. Interim report and the Inquiry on Redress for Past Abuse The Inquiry presented its interim report1 Vanvård i social barnavård (Child abuse and neglect in institutions and homes during the 20th century) in January 2010. As a direct result of this, the Government appointed the Inquiry on Redress for Past Abuse, which was tasked with proposing how redress for these people could be designed. The Redress Inquiry presented its report to the Government in February 2011.2 Its proposals con- sisted of a three-part process; recognition of what had happened and an apology, compensation to those who had suffered, and measures to prevent it from happening again. 1Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU) 2009:99, the Inquiry on Child Abuse and Neglect in Institutions and , Abuse and neglect in institutions and homes during the 20th century : Interim report, , , 2009. 2Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU), the Inquiry on Redress for Past Abuse, Barnen som samhället svek – åtgärder med anledning av övergrepp och allvarliga försummelser i samhällsvården' (The children that society betrayed – measures to rectify abuse and serious neglect in societys care of childen) : Report, , , 2011. Inquirys proposals are currently under preparation at the Government Offices (). The purpose of the final report The purpose of the final report is to present a more detailed account of the results, where individual people and their stories are given more prominence than in the interim report. The ambition has also been to discuss how it was possible for the interviewees to be abused as children, and how similar unsatisfactory conditions for children in institutions and homes can be avoided in the future. The structure of the final report The Inquirys material includes various types of descriptions, accounts of interviews, recorded interviews, written descriptions of the childrens lives, archive documents, judgments and newspaper articles. This variety of material provides an insight into the con- text in which the child abuse and neglect took place, and knowledge about the vulnerable situation in which children and young people in institutions and homes found themselves. The first two chapters are intended to give the reader an under- standing of the framework within which the Inquiry has worked. A more detailed description of the Inquirys remit, constraints and choice of methods is to be found in the Inquirys interim report. The contents and significance of the archive documents are discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 begins with a statistical report of the abuse and neglect that were registered. This is followed by seven accounts that describe, in different ways, experiences of abuse and neglect and various circumstances related to the childrens placement. The Inquiry has drawn attention to the accounts of several of the interviewees from the same home or institution. The structures, similarities and differences that can be found in their stories are analysed in Chapter 5. Chapter 6 discusses how archive material can naturally verify, but never prove false what an interviewed person has described. Through the stories told by those interviewed, we also gained insights into how their adult lives turned out after their placement. There is a discussion on this in Chapter 7. Chapter 8 deals with the significance of the interview for those interviewed. The responses to a questionnaire submitted by all those interviewed are also reported. Using all the material and experiences gained by the Inquiry, Chapter 9 is devoted to reflections on how this abuse and neglect could occur, factors that may have contributed to it and a discus- sion on ways in which security for children and young people in institutions and homes can be strengthened. The frameworks of the Inquiry The Inquiry primarily conducted interviews in order to collect information on abuse and neglect. Participation in the interviews was voluntary on the part of the interviewee, and no activities to reach out to the persons concerned took place. The majority of the interviews were conducted in the Inquirys premises in . Around one-third of the interviews took place in or . Where the interviewees were disabled or, for other reasons, unable to leave their homes, the interviews were conducted in their homes. Telephone interviews were avoided, but took place on one occasion. All the interviews were recorded. In connection with each interview, a written summary was drawn up, which the inter- viewees approved and in several cases, supplemented themselves. Only then was the abuse and neglect described classified and entered into the Inquirys database. The Inquiry also offered to search the archive documents of those interviewed where they themselves had not already done so at the time of the interview. In connection with the interviews, those interviewed were also offered eight counselling support sessions with authorised psy- chotherapists via the , which operates throughout the country. The purpose of these counselling support sessions was to provide an opportunity for the interviewee to deal with the thoughts and feelings that emerged as a result of the inter- view. All in all, the Inquiry was in touch with some 2 000 people, who considered that they had been the victims of abuse and neglect in institutions and homes, or who wished to obtain informa- tion themselves or on behalf of friends or relatives. The final date for being able to apply for an interview was 1 2009. One thousand and forty-five people applied and 902 interviews were conducted. However, the accounts of abuse and neglect in the Inquirys report are based on 866 interviews. There are several rea- sons for the smaller number of interviews compared with the number of applicants, including the fact that several interviews were cancelled or that some gave no report of abuse or neglect or did not belong to the target group for other reasons. A more detailed description of the reasons for this is given in Chapter 1. Revised opinion on privately placed and Finnish war children. In the final report, the Inquiry has revised its assessment of children who were privately placed and the Finnish war children. Its assessment is that, provided that the authorities were aware of a childs stay in a privately arranged home, those children and Finnish war children who were subjected to abuse and neglect should also be included in the various proposals of the Inquiry on Redress for Past Abuse. Based on its terms of reference3, the Inquiry interpreted the target group as people who were actively placed in institutions by the authorities. This is why people who, on their first contact with the Inquiry, explained that they had been placed on private initiatives, had been excluded. The Inquiry on Redress for Past Abuse is based on a similar definition in its proposal for financial compensation to those affected.4 This means that privately placed children were excluded, both from the opportunity to be interviewed and in the proposals for financial compensation. 4Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU) 2011:9, pp. During the course of the Inquiry, it became evident that the distinction between privately placed and authority-placed children may be unclear. One reason for this is that the interviewees them- selves did not know whether an authority had placed them in an institution or home, or someone else. The Inquiry was unable, before the interview, to check in archive documents whether people had been placed on the initiative of the authorities or not. This means that the Inquiry sometimes interviewed people who, during their childhood, were placed via private initiatives. The Inquirys conclusion is that throughout the 20th century, no distinction was made between private and formal home placements in the legal texts concerning the care of children. Up until 1945, the essential difference was instead between place- ments for which remuneration was paid and placements that, according to available information, did not include any financial transactions. Society had obligations to exercise supervision of homes that, in various ways, received payments for caring for children, irrespective of whether this money was paid by the authorities (or Child Welfare Com- mittee) or by private persons. Throughout the 20th century, the private placement of children in homes was a common occurrence in . This some- times involved remuneration, sometimes not. Until 1945, children who were placed for free were excluded from societys protec- tion, and the Child Welfare Committees held no responsibility for exercising supervision of these homes. After 1945, however, the Child Welfare Committees held supervisory responsibility for all children placed in homes within the municipality, irrespec- tive of who had placed them there. During the period in which the 1902 legislation was in force, societys responsibility differed, depending on whether the child was placed with a close relative (paternal or maternal grandparents) or with people who were entirely unknown. It should be noted that the authorities also sometimes placed children with their paternal or maternal grandparents. Thus formal placements could be made without the child being included in the concept of child under the legislation. The fact that there were children who were placed in homes without having been taken into care under any of the legal texts regulating the care of children during the 20th century does not therefore mean that the authorities had no obligations vis- à-vis these children. Responsibility for monitoring these children weighed equally heavily on Child Welfare Committees and the social services as for those children whom the authorities actively placed in care. One prerequisite for being able to make demands on the responsibilities of the authorities was, however, that the authorities were aware of where a child had been placed. Our compilation of information shows that the authorities were often aware of, and also inspected privately placed children and that the number of undetected cases presumably declined with time. The Inquirys interim report5 discussed the Finnish war children whom, in large numbers, were received by Swedish families during World War II. From the beginning, there were no explicit rules on the need for social authorities to approve these homes. This culmi- nated in the conclusion that, if the placement of a war child took place after 1944, must approve the receiving home. Experience of abuse and neglect in these homes as well was thus included in the Inquirys remit. There is, however, reason to revise the image of the authorities involvement with regard to the Finnish war children that was pre- sented in the Inquirys interim report. After 1944, the Child Wel- fare Committees in the municipalities were required to approve the placement of Finnish war children in homes. The description in the interim report is thus correct in this respect. But even before that, the state was also considerably involved in the issue of the reception and placement of children. This first took the form of state grants and the formation of a state committee, and later by assigning , , with operational responsibility for these activities. Thus the Swedish state was involved in the placement of Finnish war children in a very . 5 Swedish Government Official Reports (SOU) 2009:99. Inquiries in other countries Several countries other than have held inquiries on abuse and neglect in institutions and homes: , , , , the UK (), and . When the interim report was written, investigation had only just begun, and for obvious reasons, had not reported any results. In the Inquirys final report, reference is also made to other coun- tries with regard to how things turned out later in life for those interviewed and the significance that the interview had had for the interviewees. There are many similarities in the information that the Inquiry learned, both with regard to peoples experiences of the interview and to how placements affected the adulthood of those interviewed. For more information on the reports of other coun- tries, see Interim report, Chapter 3. The Inquirys definition of abuse and neglect The Inquiry's work spans a long period of time, from the 1920s until the 2000s. Certain types of punishment were sanctioned in laws and regulations over different periods of time. The interim report discussed the legislation and instructions regulating pun- ishments, physical violence against, and sexual abuse of children taken into care during the 20th century. The reason was to show how long the various punishments and abuse described by those interviewed had been forbidden and classified as criminal offences. The conclusion was that the abuse and neglect described by the interviewees were often forbidden in laws and regulations. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child The definition of abuse and neglect used by the Inquiry is based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The treatment of an individual child that in any respect differs from the rights pre- scribed in the Convention has been defined as abuse and neglect by the Inquiry. The rights of the child have been operationalised and classified for each person interviewed. The structure used by the Inquiry distinguishes between two forms of lack of care: abuse and neglect. Abuse is divided into physical/emotional abuse and sexual abuse. The Inquiry was not able to justify a complete distinction between physical abuse and emotional abuse, despite making several attempts in this direction. The reason for this is that all abuse contains elements of emotional violation. Physical and emotional abuse are divided into physical violence with a weapon; other physical violence; the harmful use of force; rules and punishments; threats and threatening situations; viola- tions of integrity; victimisation, and injustices. Sexual abuse is divided into hands-on abuse, which means touching/penetration of the victim, and hands-off abuse, where the victim was not subjected to direct physical contact. Neglect is divided into insufficient care in the home/institution; insufficient supervision by the parents or institution staff, and deficient schooling. Chapter 3 Archive material as a source of the history of institu- tions and homes discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the archive documents and the Inquirys experiences of archive management in . The importance of archive documents for the individuals history and redress is discussed. Versions in archive documents and those of the stories of the persons interviewed may both supplement and differ from each other. This is illustrated by case studies. Since the Inquiry interviewed people from all parts of the country, archive documents came from many different munici- palities. This provided the Inquiry with insights into how different archive management and processing may have been in various parts of the country. The chapter is divided into four sections, which give an account 1.the general guidelines existing over time with regard to require- ments for the contents of child welfare files and social services files, 2.the shortfalls in archive documents to which attention has been drawn in research, 3.the guidelines that have existed for what should be preserved and discarded, 4.some general reflections on the Inquirys experiences of requesting access to archive documents and the possibilities for redress that are accommodated in archive documents. Shortfalls in the archive material What emerged was that the legislation was generally restrictive in prescribing the information that should be included in a report. However, from the 1960s onwards there were clear instructions from on what should be noted. The conditions for documentation were stipulated in 's Råd och anvisningar, (1961) (Advice and instructions, 1961). Notes should be extensive and describe the child's conditions in the home. Where, and in what , these detailed notes on the childs situation in the home should be preserved cannot be found in this Advice and instructions. It would appear to be reasonable for these notes to be placed in the childs files, but this is not automatic. Both the research community and the Inquiry have shown that many child welfare files did not comply with these instructions and that information was not always found in the child's files, but instead could be attached as enclosures in the minutes of . Research has also shown that the archive material is deficient in many aspects; the contents of the files often lack an overall struc- ture, uniform concepts and definitions. Thus the contents of the files can vary considerably with regard to their extent and quality. Gaining access to files from different archives can take consider- able time. In addition, it can be noted that the management of social services files differs from municipality to municipality. This leads to people seeking their histories in social services files being able to access very varying material. Apart from the fact that, under the Secrecy Act, the classification of documents that the person can access may also vary, files may be missing, or the documenta- tion minimal. As a result of the lack of clarity in the regulations from 1980 regarding the sorting and disposal of archives, the Inquiry experienced that files had been incorrectly disposed of during this period. A further problem is that the files may contain insulting assess- ments or descriptions that are not consistent with the experiences of those interviewed. Sometimes psychological support may be needed in connection with people reading their archive documents. Abuse and neglect presented in figures The composition of the target group The final report comprises a total of 866 persons stories of neglect and abuse. Five hundred and nine (59 per cent) of these were women and 357 (41 per cent) men.