Confinement and restrictive measures against young people in the Nordic countries – a comparative analysis of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

Abstract

This article reviews and compares the use of confinement and other restrictive measures against young people under 18 in child welfare and/or the criminal justice systems in Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. Young people are confined for a variety of reasons, including protection, care, treatment, and punishment. However, confinement of young people is a contested issue because it can be viewed as necessary but also potentially harmful. Comparison of legislation and practices reveals that while there are some similarities in the service provisions for young people, there are also significant disparities among the four countries regarding the organization, function, and frequency of the use of confinement and restrictive measures. While Denmark and Sweden use secure welfare institutions, Finland and Norway apply other restrictive measures. Despite the differences in approaches to confinement in the Nordic countries, the use of confinement is guided by the principle of the child's best interest, and the child welfare system is the main frame for confinement and intervention. The article discusses these disparate practices from the perspective of children's rights and identifies new avenues for research and practice.

State Provision of Resilience in Social Compulsory Care: A Vulnerability Analysis of Physical Constraint of Children and Youth Without Consent

“…Even in a Nordic context, Sweden can be viewed as unique. Unlike social child-protection systems in the other Nordic countries, seclusion and restrictions of rights and freedoms within Swedish social child protection are carried out only in secure care institutions [17].…”

“…In a study of the practices of children's and young persons' rights in secure-care settings, we interviewed 15 young persons (five girls and 10 boys) aged 13-19 years. 17 At the time for the interviews, these youths were placed at four different secure-care institutions. All of them were in compulsory care and most of them had extensive previous experiences of placement in foster care as well as residential (open) and secure (locked) care.…”

The ambiguities of coercion: Mapping adolescents' experiences of coercion in institutional everyday life

“…This includes the right to participate in decision‐making regarding where they live, go to school and the organisation of everyday life. While institutional is life often aimed at providing a home‐like context of care and allowing some level of collaborative decisions‐making, institutional life is regulated by rules and staff directions at many levels (De Valk et al, 2016; Enell et al, 2022; Henriksen et al, 2008). Institutional rules can regulate where and when adolescents can go outside the institution, when and what they can eat, when and where they can sleep, watch TV, etc.…”

“…Many institutions apply practices of time‐out, where an adolescent is excluded from unit activities for a few hours or several days, as a consequence of bad behaviour or breach of rules (see Enell et al, 2022; Ulset & Tjelflaat, 2012). Time‐out can be used to enable the adolescent to regain emotional or behavioural control, to protect the adolescent from a situation escalating into physical restraint or as punishment for breaking rules.…”

Criminogenic Risk Assessment Beyond Juvenile Justice: Exploring the Predictive Ability of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in Norway

“…This raise concerns as Scandinavian countries, including Norway, do not have specific juvenile justice systems akin to those in North America and other regions. A common feature in the Nordic countries includes diverting young people who offend into child welfare systems and employing a high minimum age of for criminal responsibility (Enell et al, 2022; Storgaard, 2004). Consequently, a main management platform for adolescents involved in the justice system due to delinquency is based on social service provisions.…”