High-risk youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving the residential education in Finland

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.01.009Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper is based on a Finnish study, where the post-adjustment of the students of the residential education for high-risk adolescents in Finland was followed-up in 2002. On the basis of the qualitative descriptions it is evident that a placement in residential education can be followed by different life courses. These are grouped here as three main pathways, (1) “making it”-pathway, (2) “living on the edge”, and (3) “mixed”-pathway. The results indicate that, in particular, young males are at high risk of cumulative risk behavior during the next years after leaving the institutions. However, in general, the life situations have stabilised during their early 20s, in particular for those young people who have committed a supporting partnership.

Introduction

As Jones and Landsverk (2006) put it; “residential care has been out of favor as a treatment of choice for youth”. This is not only the situation in the United States, the same has been reported in Nordic countries (e.g. Bryderup, 2004, Jahnukainen et al., 2006, Levin, 2004). Despite the general rejection as a form of treatment, it seems that there are situations where placement in a residential facility is still needed. Typically these young people have multiple problems and they are often the object of social work and child protection, but at the same time they have come into contact with professionals within special education, child and juvenile psychiatry, substance abuse treatment, and also the court system (e.g. Bryderup, 2004, McMillen et al., 2005, Todis et al., 2001). Institutional care is often labelled as a last-resort intervention: it will be used when no other options are available.

Because of its unpopular nature, residential education has also suffered for lack of adequate research (e.g. Courtney et al., 2001, Jones and Landsverk, 2006, Jahnukainen et al., 2006). One reason for the scarcity of research may be that the education and rehabilitation of this group is positioned in a multi-professional zone which makes them difficult to fit into traditional definitions of target groups (e.g., Todis et al., 2001).

A common challenge for the treatment of high-risk students is the facility-to-community transition. In general, the follow-up studies focusing on students who leave various institutions for high-risk students show that these young people are clearly performing poorly after the release (e.g. Bullis et al., 2004, Choca et al., 2004, Levin, 2004). Particularly little is known about the factors linked to positive transitions (e.g., Todis et al., 2001), although the study of the protective and risk factors during the life course is a promising starting-point for follow-up studies on this group (e.g., Jahnukainen and Järvinen, 2005, Murray, 2003, Rönkä, 1999).

The material presented in this article is based on a Finnish follow-up study (Jahnukainen, 2004) forming part of a research entity funded by Stakes (The National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health) under the name Careers of Residential Education Students. That project consisted of three research entities: (1) a study of the client history of young people placed in residential education on the basis of the transition documents; (2) an ethnographic study of the treatment practices of two residential facilities and the experiences of their students, and (3) follow-up of residential education students after their return home and a study of their experiences in residential education (see Jahnukainen et al., 2006).

Section snippets

Residential education in the Finnish context

According to statistics from 2002, the total number of Finnish children under 18 years of age placed outside their homes was 14,187 (Stakes, 2003). The majority of them were placed in foster care or in municipal children's or juvenile homes. The residential education for high-risk children – six state-owned facilities and two facilities maintained by private foundations – annually have about 300 students, or only about 2% of children placed outside their homes (Stakes, 2003).

Placements are

Method

This study attempted to capture the stories concerning their life histories and life situations told by the young people themselves. The task was a challenging one because sample loss with this type of population typically occurs (e.g. Courtney et al., 2001). However, it was important both theoretically and pragmatically that an attempt was made in the research to elucidate the viewpoint of those who are the object of treatment — not the viewpoints of social workers or parents, for example, who

Results

Three main career pathways may be discerned in the data: (1) those who were able to “make it” (see e.g., Jessor, Turbin, & Costa, 1998), (2) those who are “living on the edge”, and (3) “mixed”-pathway (Fig. 1). The group “making-it” is further divided into two sub-groups: “stabilized” and “coping” careers. Similarly, “living on the edge” is divided into “drug career” and “criminal career” according to the principal nature of the problems.

Following is a description of the different career

Discussion

On the basis of the qualitative descriptions in the study it is obvious that a placement in residential education can be followed by different life courses. It is important to notice that, after residential education, transitions linked to both social integration and exclusion are indeed possible; this could actually be called the primary result of this study. The general opinion is often stereotypically in line with the latter career, and positive career pathways have also been mostly

Limitations

Looking at the data as a whole, it is clear that career pathways which have taken a positive turn number exactly one half of those interviewed. However, it is not possible to present the direct generalization that “half of those released from residential educations are integrated into society, and half of them have entered a career pathway that is unstable or contains an accumulation of risks”. This interpretation would be too simplistic, bearing in mind how the data was formed. This is

Acknowledgement

STAKES (The National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health) has funded the collection of the follow-up data. This article is based upon work supported by the Academy of Finland (Grants no. 105649 and 211163).

References (30)

  • Jahnukainen, M. (2004). Koulukodissa ja koulukodin jälkeen. Vuosina 1996 ja 2000 valtion koulukodeista kotiutettujen...
  • M. Jahnukainen et al.

    Risk factors and survival routes: Social exclusion as a life-historical phenomenon

    Disability and Society

    (2005)
  • M. Jahnukainen et al.

    Ongelmia ja mahdollisuuksia — koulukotioppilaan uran moniaineistoinen tarkastelu [Problems and opportunities — A multi-data approach concerning the careers of reform school students]

    Nuorisotutkimus [Finnish Journal of Youth Research]

    (2006)
  • R. Jessor et al.

    Problem behavior and psychosocial development: A longitudinal study of youth

    (1977)
  • R. Jessor et al.

    Risk and protection in successful outcomes among disadvantaged adolescents

    Applied Developmental Science

    (1998)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text