nos.nl
70% of Dutch Children Return Home After Out-of-Home Placement, but High Relapse Rate Underscores Systemic Issues
A Leiden University study reveals that 70% of the 456 children placed in out-of-home care in 2018 returned home by 2023, yet 25% of those children were again placed out-of-home, highlighting issues of insufficient support and traumatic removal processes.
- What are the immediate consequences of the high rate of children returning to out-of-home care in the Netherlands?
- In the Netherlands, 70% of children placed in out-of-home care return home, but 25% of those who initially return are later placed again. This is concerning, according to researchers, as it shows a group of children cycling in and out of care.
- How do staff shortages in youth care and challenging family situations contribute to the cyclical nature of out-of-home placements?
- The high rate of return to out-of-home care is attributed to staff shortages in youth care, resulting in insufficient support for a swift return home, and to challenging family situations, such as parental trauma. Children are more likely to return home safely if parents receive support during the out-of-home placement, highlighting the importance of continued support after the child's return.
- What long-term impacts will the frequent moves and traumatic emergency removals have on these children's well-being, and what systemic changes are needed to prevent this?
- The frequent moves experienced by nearly half of the children studied (some as many as 13 times), cause isolation and depression and are deeply damaging. The high number of emergency removals, often involving police intervention and preventing goodbyes, adds further trauma.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing is heavily negative, focusing on the high rate of children returning home and the negative consequences associated with it, such as multiple placements. The headline emphasizes the statistic of four out of ten children returning home, which might be interpreted as a failure rate, framing the situation as more negative than it may actually be. The use of words like "zorgelijk" (worrying) and "traumatisch" (traumatic) reinforces the negative tone and emphasizes the problems within the system.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language, such as "zorgelijk" (worrying), "traumatisch" (traumatic), and "spannend" (exciting/tense). While these words accurately reflect the researcher's concerns, they contribute to a generally negative tone and could affect reader perception. More neutral alternatives might include terms like "concerning," "challenging," and "difficult." The repetition of negative aspects without equivalent emphasis on positive aspects enhances the negative framing.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative aspects of child removal and return, potentially omitting success stories or positive outcomes of the system. While it mentions the difficulties faced by families, it lacks a balanced perspective on effective interventions and positive changes within the child welfare system. The article also doesn't delve into the reasons behind why children might not be placed back into parental care, aside from mentioning trauma in parents and personnel shortages.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present a false dichotomy, but by focusing primarily on the challenges and negative consequences of the system, it implicitly creates a dichotomy between a flawed system and the ideal of every child returning home. This oversimplifies a complex issue with multiple contributing factors and solutions.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights that children who experience multiple placements show higher rates of loneliness and depression, negatively impacting their education and well-being. Frequent moves disrupt their schooling and learning process, hindering their academic progress and overall development. The traumatic nature of some placements further compounds these negative effects.