El concepto de jeitinho

The Terms of Reference (ToR) stipulated that the country cases should be selected according to a best-practice criterion as well as to transferability to the Norwegian context. In order to select best-practice countries we reviewed country reports by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, but the results were quite alarming: hardly any European country were evaluated as having good practices and support systems in place related to rehabilitation and social reintegration of war-affected asylum-seeking children.

Using the transferability criterion, we selected two of Norway‘s neighbouring countries, Sweden and Denmark; two countries with quite similar welfare state systems as Norway. The selection of the third case country, Luxembourg, was at the time mainly based on the best- practice criterion as this country was, to our knowledge, the only European country commended by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child for their improved efforts to fulfil the rights of war-affected asylum children (UN 2007: 3). The transferability to the Norwegian context was also seen to exist as Luxembourg, similar to Norway, is a relatively small and rich European country. It should, however, be noted that later on, in 2013, also Luxembourg were criticized by the Committee; for ―lack of available places in special reception centres for unaccompanied children‖ as well as for not putting in place ―a mechanism to identify at an early stage children who may have been involved in armed conflict abroad or been victims of crimes, nor a procedure for their protection, recovery and reintegration (UN 2013: 9).

The country case studies were based on a desk study and qualitative interviews. The desk

study involved looking for general information, statistics and research studies mainly on

websites but also in printed material (see sources). The written material that was analysed

8

Such as waiting for the Immigration authority‘s decision, waiting to be settled in a municipality, or waiting to be returned home, here included those unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors who are granted a temporary residence permit.

35

included legal framework, implementation guidelines or handbooks, documents describing the organization and coordination of interventions, reports, evaluations and studies by NGOs and government institutions, academic research and publications. The documents were mainly collected through the entities that participated in the study, but also through official correspondence to relevant public entities and websites of relevant civil society‘s organizations.

Interviews were conducted with three categories of respondents: practitioners, experts and war-affected children and parents. 16 practitioners, among others social workers, nurses and

psychologists who work directly with war-affected asylum-seeking children, were interviewed through this project. These interviews are very valuable as the practitioners are seen as those having the most knowledge about the children‘s particular needs, challenges and strengths. Five interviews were conducted with experts in the field of war-affected children and youth; having either or both research knowledge and practical experience from the field. Experts were purposively selected based on extensive knowledge on interventions aimed to rehabilitate and socially reintegrate war-affected children.

The project also includes interviews with a few war-affected asylum seeking children and parents. Due to ethical reasons regarding parental consent, 15 years was set as minimum age of youth to participate in interviews. To better understand the needs of younger children some parents were also included as interviewees. Five war-affected youths and five parents of children affected by war were interviewed through this project. Three of the youths were male and two female. Four were UAMs and one was accompanied by her family. The five parents represent three different families; three mothers and two fathers. In addition, we also interviewed three foster parents (two families) of UMs from war-affected countries. Practitioners identified youth and parents that were comfortable to talk about their situation and therefore to participate in an interview. The practitioners used the informed consent document to convey information about the project.

In Denmark, the interviews were conducted with a total of six staff members at the Red Cross head office and at the asylum centres of Avnstrup and Vipperød, with two sets of parents of war-affected asylum children (Avnstrup) and two UAMs (Vipperød). In addition, the study includes an expert interview with Edith Montgomery, Senior Reseacher and Psychologist at DIGNITY - Danish Institute Against Torture.

In Sweden, the interviews were conducted with a total of five practitioners at different public services and at Erikslust PUT Camp (Attendo), with one mother and her daughter at Röstånga ABT (Attendo) and two unaccompanied minors at Erikslust PUT Camp. The Swedish case includes two expert interviews; one with Monica Brendler-Lindqvist, Director of the Red Cross Centre for Torture Victims in Stockholm and one with Guhn Godani, psychologist and psychotherapist at Kris- och traumacentrum also in Stockholm. Both had previously been working for Save the Children Sweden.

In Luxembourg, the interviews were conducted with two staff members at the Luxembourgian first reception centre ‗Foyer Don Bosco‘ run by the Red Cross. Other organizations working with refugees in Luxembourg (OLAI, Caritas, ASTI) were requested for interviews but denied

36

to have sufficient experiences with war-affected refugee children and referred to the Red Cross. Despite intense efforts, it was not possible to conduct interviews with war-affected asylum children/youths or parents. The Luxembourg case includes an expert interview with René Schlechter, the president of the OmbudsCommittee and Ombudsman for Children‘s rights.

The interviews were semi-structured, in some cases with practitioners and experts not using the interview guide in a strict manner, in order to allow more flexibility depending on interviewees‘ particular knowledge and field of expertise.

Due to language barriers, we needed to use interpreters in the interviews with asylum-seeking youth and parents. Staff at the centres and UAM-homes organized interpreters, either from certified interpreter services or among bi-lingual consultants used by the centres. In one interview, there was no availability of an interpreter, and a staff member stepped in to assist during the interview. One interview was conducted with telephone interpretation, while the interpreter was physically present in the others. In most of the interviews, there appeared to be a good dynamic between the interviewer, the interviewee and the interpreter, while more challenges occurred in the interview with phone interpretation. Also the lack of experience with interpretation impacted on the interview that was interpreted by a staff member. We recognize that the risks of misunderstanding are greater as the information has to pass through several steps of interpretation, and although an interpreter allows the interviewees to express themselves in their mother tongue, the interpreter's presence may also have a negative impact on the interview situation. This may be particularly the case for people from war- or conflict- ridden countries and countries with very strict regimes.