Transitioning to Adulthood:
Unaccompanied Asylum
Seeking Young People
Leaving Care.
A qualitative study in Hamburg.
International Master’s Programme in Social Work and Human Rights
Degree report 30 higher education credit
Spring 2013
Author: Julia Ahrens
Supervisor: Ingrid Höjer
Abstract
International research has shown that care leavers face a series of complex transition tasks on
their way to adulthood. They have to master these with less emotional and financial support
than their peers with access to family support. Consequently they are at higher risk of
homelessness, unemployment and social exclusion. Unaccompanied asylum seeking young
people leaving care face additional challenges due to their status as refugees with often unregularized residence permits. Research findings suggest that a sound pathway planning can
facilitate a more successful transition. This study explores how social workers structure the
care leaving process for unaccompanied asylum seeking young people in Germany. It aims to
determine external structural factors influencing this process and how the young people are
perceived in terms of skills and resources as well as in terms of access to social capital. For
this purpose nine semi structured interviews with social workers were conducted. The social
workers identify a lack of guidelines and structure in the care leaving process. Furthermore
they illustrate difficulties in facilitating a successful transition due to a severe lack of housing,
the asylum process and the unpredictability of decisions of the funding agencies. The
uncertainty of the young people’s stay in Germany due to pending asylum decisions
additionally leads to mental health problems in the transition for the young people. The social
workers perceive the young people as generally well equipped with skills and resources.
However they illustrate how these skills are neglected in the German system. They further
describe the young people as rich in bonding social capital but as lacking access to bridging
social capital. The social workers in this study see themselves as responsible for facilitating
this bridging form of social capital but describe their struggle in trying to enable this.
Title: Transitioning to Adulthood: Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Young People
Leaving Care.
Author: Julia Ahrens
Key words: Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children/Young People, Youth, Transition
to Adulthood, Social Capital
1
Acknowledgements
I want to thank everyone that helped me complete this long project! Especially I would like to
thank:
All the participants for sharing your knowledge and opinions with me and dedicating
some of your time to me!
Ingrid, for your advice, encouragement and helping me resolve my confusions!
Lisa, Imke, Steffi and Ingo for providing me with a home, support and inspiration
during my stay in Hamburg!
Klod, for taking me to the beach and enduring my laments!
Eira, for locking yourself into your room and providing me with your valuable
feedback!
Marianna you were my study buddy and stayed with me, every single day, throughout
the whole time! I don’t know if I could have done it without you! And to Annie for
joining this arrangement and teaching me all about comma rules (that I have already
forgotten)!
And also all my classmates and teachers for the great time I had during these two
years!
2
Table of Contents
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 5
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Aims and Research Questions .......................................................................................... 7
2 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children in Germany ........................................................ 8
2.1 Numbers and Facts ........................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Situation in Hamburg ....................................................................................................... 9
2.4 Follow up Care ............................................................................................................... 11
3 The German Youth Care System .......................................................................................... 12
4 Previous Research ................................................................................................................. 12
4.1 Germany ......................................................................................................................... 13
4.2 International Research .................................................................................................... 14
4.2.1 Care Leavers in General .......................................................................................... 14
4.2.2 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Care Leavers ..................................................... 15
5 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 17
5.1 Youth, Transition to Adulthood and Refugee Youth ..................................................... 17
5.2 Social Capital ................................................................................................................. 19
6 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 21
6.1 Design of study............................................................................................................... 22
6.2 Recruitment Process ....................................................................................................... 23
6.3 Reflections on Researcher – Respondent Dynamics ...................................................... 23
6.4 Data Management .......................................................................................................... 24
6.5 Ethical Considerations.................................................................................................... 24
6.6 Validity, Reliability and Generalization......................................................................... 25
6.7 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 26
7 Results and Analysis ............................................................................................................. 26
7.1 The Respondents ............................................................................................................ 26
7.2 Findings and Analysis: Care Leaving Process ............................................................... 27
7.2.1 Findings: Care Leaving Process .............................................................................. 27
7.2.2 Analysis: Care Leaving Process .............................................................................. 32
7.3 Findings and Analysis: Impact of External Structural Factors ...................................... 34
7.3.1 Findings: External Structural Factors ...................................................................... 35
7.3.2 Analysis: External Structural Factors ...................................................................... 40
7.4 Findings and Analysis: Perceptions of Young People ................................................... 42
3
7.4.1 Findings: Perceptions of Young People .................................................................. 42
7.4.2 Analysis: Perceptions of Young People .................................................................. 49
8. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 52
Reference List
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
4
Abbreviations
CLCA
Children Leaving Care Act
UNCRC
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
B-UMF e.V.
Federal Association for Unaccompanied Refugee Minors
(Bundesfachverband unbegleitete minderjährige Flüchtlinge e.V.)
KJND
Children and Youth Emergency Service (Kinder- und Jugendnotdienst)
PTSD
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
UASC
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children
UASYP
Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Young People
YWO
Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt)
1 Introduction
“I always had the feeling that no more than necessary is done. Youth care ends when you
come of age then they have fulfilled their task. They make sure that you can more or less cope
with the daily life tasks, but they don’t do much to facilitate a professional career. You have
to do everything alone.”(Christian, 26, German care leaver)1
The situation of care leavers has not been given much attention by social policy and research
in Germany. International research has shown that care leavers face a series of complex
transition tasks on their way to adulthood. They have to master these with less emotional and
financial support than their peers growing up with access to family support. This means they
are at higher risk of homelessness, unemployment and social exclusion (Strahl & Thomas
2013). Unaccompanied asylum seeking young people leaving care face additional challenges
due to their status as refugees and often un-regularized residence statuses (Wade 2011). This
study explores the structure of the care leaving process of unaccompanied asylum seeking
young people in a German context.
Due to the lack of attention given to the issue in Germany there is no definition of ‘care
leavers’ available from a German context. However in an international context there are
different definitions for what characterizes a care leaver. One example is given by the
Children Leaving Care Act in Great Britain that defines a care leaver as a person leaving state
care that has spent more than 13 weeks in this care until the age of 18. In this study the
definition of the Care Leavers Association from England and Wales is used. This association
is run by care leavers for care leavers, which is why their definition is chosen based on the
assumption that it best represents their view. According to their definition a care leaver is:
“Any adult who spent time in care as a child (i.e. under the age of 18). This
care would have been approved by the state through a court order or on a
voluntary basis. It can range from as little as a few months to as long as one’s
1
http://www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/universitaet-hildesheim-forschungsprojekt-und-netzwerk-fuer-careleaver-a-896344-5.html Quote taken form a magazine article on a care leaving assistance project at the
University of Hildesheim. Project homepage: https://www.uni-hildesheim.de/index.php?id=careleaver
5
whole childhood (18 years). Such care could be in foster care, residential care
(mainly children’s homes) or other arrangements outside the immediate or
extended family. The care could have been provided directly by the state
(mainly through local authority social services departments) or by the
voluntary or private sector (e.g. Barnardo’s, The Children’s Society and many
others). It also includes a wide range of accommodation. For example, it would
include secure units, approved schools, industrial schools and other institutions
that have a more punitive element than mainstream foster or residential care.“
(The Care leavers Associations (2013): online2)
This study explores the care leaving process of unaccompanied asylum seeking young people
that came to Hamburg before the age of 18. It is limited to those young people that have been
placed in residential care. The focus is on the perspective of social workers on this process
and their perception of the young people. In the following the importance of the topic and the
aims and goals of this study will be illustrated.
1.1 Background
In the transition to adulthood young people placed in care are confronted with several
challenges. They have often experienced adverse, traumatic events in their past and are
additionally faced with the challenge of performing the transition to independent living with
less support. The lower levels of support are due to a lack of a strong family network,
financial resources and their often lower education levels. The transition to adulthood for care
leavers also presents a more abrupt and compressed change in life circumstances than young
people of the same age experience when living with their families (Stein 2011; Wade 2005).
Unaccompanied asylum seeking young people (UASYP) face further difficulties since their
stay in the country is often not regularized, meaning their application is pending, and their
future life chances are uncertain (Hancilova & Knauder 2011).
The series of transition tasks young people are faced with are among others finishing school,
entering the labor market or higher education, moving out from home or out of care and
starting a family. Across Europe research has shown that this transition has been remarkably
extended over the last decades and is now a process of several years lasting far into the third
life decade (Buchmann & Kriesi 2011). It is furthermore characterized by openness and
uncertainty (Höjer & Sjöblom 2011). In the phase of transition young people generally
experience some areas of their lives in which they are autonomous and independent, whilst
there are others in which they stay dependent or fall back into dependency. This phenomenon
is called “yoyo-transitions” (Stauber & Walther 2007). For young people placed in care the
possibilities of falling back are usually very limited. They are expected to have a linear
transition from adolescence to adulthood (Höjer & Sjöblom 2011), very much in contrast to
how the majority of their peers experience it. Young care leavers are confronted with an
additional structural trajectory in addition to the range of transition events and structural
trajectories that all young people have to go through. They are leaving the institutional care
system mostly without the support of a persisting family network. This is alarming, since
research has shown that young people become more dependent on their families during their
prolonged transition into adulthood. This emphasizes the need for adequate and sufficient
support during the transition for young care leavers (Höjer & Sjöblom 2011; Stein 2011;
Wade et al. 2005).
Care leavers face different and more obstacles than their peers. The moving out process takes
place earlier and is in most cases irreversible, compressed and takes place faster. They have
2
http://www.careleavers.com/careleaver
6
fewer resources to draw on in order to cope with this trajectory and other institutional
transitions, such as ending school, often do not happen synchronized. A successful transition
is judged on the basis of institutional and structural expectations and not so much based on the
individual and subjective goals and wishes of the adolescents/young adults (Höjer & Sjöblom
2010; Stein 2011; Wade et al. 2005). According to Cashmore & Paxman (2006) young people
who leave care and have to transition into adulthood without the support of their families have
by definition less emotional, social and financial support. They also lack the possibility to
‘space out’ (Stein 2005). Stein (2005) here refers to a transition period where young people
try new things, take risk and are in search of their identities. Due to not having the possibility
of falling back into a previous or ongoing support network care leavers are expected to reach
adulthood instantaneously (Stein 2005).
Being an asylum seeking young person leaving care adds further disadvantages to this life
trajectory and renders the young people more vulnerable. Most of the young people
experienced traumatic events before or during their flight from their home countries. This
leads to an elevated risk of anxiety and depression (Wade 2011). Their transitions are
significantly affected by their asylum claims and their immigration status is often unresolved.
They therefore do not only face uncertainty regarding practical issues such as housing,
finances and also emotional networks, but also their general future about the stay in the
country is insecure (Stein 2012). In different countries of the EU turning 18 even means to
have less chances to get a permanent residence permit (Hancilova & Knauder 2011). The
transition planning for this target group is complex, since many different outcomes
concerning the stay of the young people in the country have to be taken into account (Stein
2012). This double status of being a care leaver and asylum seeker at the same time renders
the question of pathway planning for this specific group even more important (Stein 2006;
Wade 2011).
1.2 Aims and Research Questions
Research findings indicate that a sound pathway planning can facilitate a more successful care
leaving trajectory and facilitate a better transition to adulthood. This small-scale study
explores how social workers in Hamburg, Germany shape the care leaving process for
unaccompanied asylum seeking young people (UASYP) leaving residential care. A key aspect
is the fact that the transition to adulthood for this target group is determined by the asylum
process. It can be a facilitating or limiting factor for the individual futures, which is often at
the time of transition still open to both options. The impact of this uncertainty and the options
for social workers to influence this process or prepare the young people for all possible
outcomes is a strong focus of this project. Social capital, as the resources deriving from
networks and relationships based on mutual trust, can provide the potential to resolve identity
conflicts and to cope with uncertainties on the route to adulthood (Helve & Bynner 2007).
Therefore it is also interesting to explore the social workers perception of the young people’s
access to social capital. The main research questions are:
1. How is the care leaving process shaped and structured by the care system and the
individual social worker and how does this affect the young people?
2. What external structural factors are influencing the care leaving process?
3. How are the young people perceived by the social workers in terms of skills,
relationships, networks and social capital?
In order to find answers to these questions professional social workers were interviewed using
semi-structured, qualitative interviews. The interviews took place in Hamburg, Germany so
7
the study focused on the specific context there. International perspectives will nevertheless be
discussed.
In the first step the situation of unaccompanied asylum seeking young people in Germany,
and also specifically in Hamburg, is illustrated. A special focus here is on the process of the
integration of the young people into the youth care system.
In chapter 3 the German youth care system is outlined to clarify the context of care in which
the UASYP are placed.
In chapter 4 previous research findings on the topic of care leavers in general in Germany and
internationally are presented. Following this, international research findings on the care
leaving process of unaccompanied asylum seeking young people are described.
The theoretical framework for the analysis entailing the stage of youth, transition to adulthood
and social capital is outlined in chapter 5.
Chapter 6 illustrates the methodology used to conduct this study and analyze the collected
material.
Subsequently in chapter 7 the findings will be presented, analyzed and discussed before final
conclusions are drawn in chapter 8.
2 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children in Germany
This chapter provides an overview of the situation of UASC in Germany and especially
Hamburg. It illustrates the procedure of taking these children and young people into custody
and provides an overview of the number of young people coming unaccompanied to
Germany.
2.1 Numbers and Facts
There is no systematic aggregated data on unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASC)
in Germany. The Federal Agency for Migration and Refugees (BMF) publishes numbers
based on the overall asylum applications. These exclude those young people that never apply
for asylum. The non-government organization (NGO) Pro Asyl published a summary of these
numbers. According to this report there was a 9% increase in asylum applications of
unaccompanied minor refugees in Germany in 2011. The number rose from 1.948 to 2.126 in
comparison to 2010. The majority of these young people came from Afghanistan with 1.092
registered Asylum applications. Afghanistan was followed by Iraq, Somalia and Syria as
countries of origin for UASYP that applied for asylum. Out of the overall number 11,6%
received the asylum status and further 28,4% protection out of subsidiary reasons (Pro Asyl
2013). In contrast to this approach the Federal Association for Unaccompanied Minor
Refugees (B-UMF e.V.) published much higher numbers for the same year. These are based
on the report of the Youth Welfare Offices (YWOs) and the number of young people they
took into custody. According to this report the number of UASC did not increase but
decreased in comparison to the year before. The number of UASC that were taken into
custody was 3700 and therefore much higher than the number of asylum applications. The BUMF e.V. indicates that only some German federal states provided reliable and inclusive data
whereas at least four states used data from unreliable sources and six further states were still
waiting for data of some receiving communes. This means that the actual number is even
higher. They additionally point out how even this higher number of 3700 only comprise those
minors that were taken into custody and estimated to be under the age of 18 (B-UMF
e.V.2012). The federal association demands a central acquisition of data to be able to
8
appropriately plan for sufficient housing, clearing facilities and a transparent evaluation of the
situation for UASC in Germany. (B-UMF e.V.2012) This lack of systematically aggregated
data may be interpreted as a lack of interest in the target group. Without consistent numbers it
is difficult for municipalities and states to appropriately plan the necessary resources to
provide the UASYP with the needed care. The fact that they do not assign resources to this
might be interpreted as neglect of the importance of appropriate care facilities and resources.
Further problems concerning these numbers will be discussed in ch. 2.3.
2.2 Procedure
If a UASC is found by any kind of official institution the responsible YWO has to be notified
immediately. The YWO takes the children and adolescents that are assumed to be under the
age of 18 into custody. A requirement for this is that they arrived without an adult that is
willing or able to take care of them. Immediately after arrival a so called “clearing-procedure”
takes place. This is supposed to investigate the exact circumstances under which the child
came to Germany. The procedure investigates where the family members are, determines the
needs of the UASC and seeks to determine a possible perspective for the UASC (B-UMF e.V.
2013). The guidelines concerning this procedure determine that the UASC should be placed
with a suitable person, in a suitable flat or a suitable institution. The procedure of placing a
UASC differs in the 16 federal states and communes in Germany. It can take anywhere from a
couple of days to three months and is handled by different institutions (B-UMF e.V. 2013). In
the following chapter the specific situation in Hamburg, in which this study is located, is
described in further detail.
2.3 Situation in Hamburg
The following information is based on an evaluation by the Federal Association for
Unaccompanied Minor Refugees (B-UMF e.V.) in cooperation with the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Germany. The number of
unaccompanied asylum seeking children that have been taken into custody in Hamburg has
been steadily increasing over the last years. In 2009 192 unaccompanied refugees were taken
into custody in Hamburg, while in 2012 the number rose to 623. These numbers only
comprise those children that were taken into custody by the youth services. They exclude
those that were determined as being over the age of 18, even though they claimed to be
younger. Since 2010 only around 50% were accepted as being under the age of 18 after the
initial examination or interrogation. Other than being rejected as underage some children
might be placed with suitable persons such as relatives. These are also not included in the
number on UASC in Hamburg. Furthermore there is no information on how many children
have been rejected at the borders or live in Germany undocumented (B-UMF e.V. and BMF
2012). Most of the refugees came from the Middle East and Africa, but only 13% were
female. The highest represented nation is Afghanistan, even though their number decreased
since from 70% in 2010 to 52% in 2012. 78% of the young people were between the ages of
16 and 18. The average age was 16,0 in 2012. When they reach the age of 18 while they are in
the initial care institutions custody ends and they are referred to a homeless shelter or special
housing for asylum seekers. Only 45% of the young people placed in an initial care institution
receive ongoing care in the youth care system (B-UMF e.V. and UNHCR 2010). For this
study this means that the focus is on a very small group out of all the young refugees that
come to Germany unaccompanied. The young people that this study is about are the ones that,
for unknown reasons to the researcher, make it into the youth care system. There is no official
information available about the future of those that were rejected as unaccompanied minor
refugees after their arrival.
9
So far there is no regularized procedure for taking UASC into custody in Hamburg. The
Children and Youth Emergency Service (KJND) is the main actor in this process. They are
notified if any UASC is found, take them into custody and place them in a preliminary
institution for newly arrived asylum seeking children. There, social workers decide together
with legal guardians and the appointed YWO about the future of these adolescents. Because
of the growing number of UASC some of them are placed with the KJND instead of in
appropriate institution due to the lack of capacities. The maximum stay in one of these
preliminary institutions should be 90 days, but the average stay in the initial care in 2010 was
108 days and therefore longer than desired. The stay is often prolonged due to the lack of
appropriate follow up institutions or because the clearing procedure could not be finished in
time (B-UMF e.V. 2011).
The decision to take the young person into custody is based on certain considerations.
Determining factors are whether the person is foreign, came unaccompanied and has no
relative or other person willing or able to take care of him/her. Besides this the decision is
based on the report of the person and on the principle that unaccompanied minors are in need
of protection. In cases where the age is not documented it has to be determined. This is done
through collecting biographical data, the assessment of the physical appearance, as far as it is
possible to see without having to use special instruments or taking the clothes off. If the age is
obviously above 18, the city of Hamburg will refuse to take the young person into custody. In
cases of doubt the young person will be assumed to be under age, but a medical examination
will additionally be ordered. If the young person is obviously under age he/she will be taken
into custody. The estimation of age is done by at least two social-pedagogues. They should
have many years of work experience with young people. The medical examination takes place
in the university clinic by a forensic doctor. If necessary the development of the wisdom teeth
will be looked at, additionally the jaw or/and the collarbone might be x-rayed. If the young
person is assumed to be under age, the procedure of taking him/her into custody will be
continued. The age assessment is an administrative act, so that the young persons can appeal
against this decision. This procedure of age assessment has been criticized extensively for
ethical reasons and because of not complying with the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (CRC) by the B-UMF e.V. They state that especially during puberty the
determination of age is very difficult and due to the severe consequences that follow for the
individuals, it should be taken by appropriate institutions (B-UMF e.V. 2013). For further
information and discussion see a report by Smith and Brownlees 2011 3. The people who have
custody (parents) of the young refugees are usually not available or reachable so the YWO
immediately orders a legal guardian as a next step (B-UMF e.V. and UNHCR 2010).
There is no information available on the reasons for the low number of young people
receiving ongoing care. A possible reason could be that those not receiving further care are
close to turning 18 and are considered not in need of youth care. It might also be that those
young people with little prospects of staying in Germany do not receive it because the
authorities consider it as a waste of resources. Underlying this perception of the young people
as not needing care is the asylum law that considers young people legally of age at the age of
16 rather than at 18. This is an arbitrary reduction of the age of maturity and therefore leaves
many young people between the ages of 16 and 18 in Germany without the needed support.
The Federal Association for Unaccompanied Minor Refugees (B-UMF e.V. 2013) criticizes
this as contradicting the Article 1 of the UN-CRC that defines a child in need of protection as
a person under the age of 18. The German law leads to young people under 18 applying for
asylum without receiving support in the process. It furthermore means that many are
accommodated with adults instead of in appropriate youth welfare institutions. The B-UMF
3
http://www.unicef.org/protection/Age_Assessment_Practices_2010.pdf
10
e.V. (2013) criticizes that some municipalities still treat 16 and 17 year old UASYP as adults
and do not take them into custody at all. Even though Hamburg acts differently the number of
young people receiving ongoing care shows that they are also disadvantaged. Germany has
withdrawn its reservations on the CRC to treat foreign children differently. Despite this, the
B-UMF e.V. remarks that the steps taken to put this withdrawal into action are not sufficient.
The federal government even goes so far as to not consider young refugees over the age of 16
as minors at all (B-UMF e.V. 2013). This view renders the withdrawal of the reservations on
the CRC practically void.
The initial care should take place in an appropriate shelter. This should either be an institution
especially for unaccompanied minor refugees or other youth residential care homes. The
young person stays here for approximately 3 months until he/she can be integrated into the
youth care system. In the initial care institution the care is provided round the clock, by
mostly pedagogic staff. The young people are furthermore provided with clothes, food, shelter
and other material necessities (B-UMF e.V. and UNHCR 2010). In this initial care they will
also receive medical treatment and, if necessary, vaccinations. They get help with organizing
their daily life, such as starting school, getting in touch with contact persons and organizing
leisure activities. They will furthermore work on resolving the legal status, initiate the asylum
procedure (if over the age of 16) and try to regularize their stay in the country. The first care
institution is responsible to assist the young people in overcoming and coping with their
situation and try to make plans for the future. They receive individual counseling hours for
support and orientation in their new everyday life. Another aspect of care concerns the contact
to other supportive institutions such as asylum rights groups. They will also be introduced to
the German language through a course, to Germany as a country and the everyday routines.
The initial care will also contribute to investigating if the custody can be ended. For that they
determine the amount of support these young people need, if there are relatives in the country
and if a return in the home country is possible. Together with the appointed YWO the initial
care institutions assist in finding an appropriate follow up home. It is possible to provide the
young persons with financial support to get legal support for their asylum claims (B-UMF
e.V. and UNHCR 2010). All minor refugees are obliged to attend school. If they are not able
to speak the language yet, they will be placed in literation classes and/or preparation classes.
After changing to a “normal” school they will receive additional support with the German
language for another year (B-UMF e.V. 2010).
2.4 Follow up Care
After the stay in the initial care institution some of the young people are placed in residential
youth care. In Hamburg these are normally residential youth groups where they live in groups
with other UASYP and are cared for by one or two social workers. These settings aim to
prepare the young people to live independently. Already in these homes they live quite
independently and usually only receive support during the day. At night there is often a
person living in the same house that is on call for emergency situations. All the social workers
interviewed in this study work in these more independent setting. Another possibility is more
intensive care including around-the-clock care for young people with very high needs. This
much more expensive solution is rarely chosen for this group of young people (B-UMF e.V.
and UNHCR 2010). The process of leaving these less intensive care institutions is the subject
of this small-scale study. These institutions are not exclusively designed for unaccompanied
refugees. However in some cases projects choose to only take in UASYP instead of mixing
them with German citizen youth. To illustrate these settings the following chapter provides a
short introduction to the German youth care system.
11
3 The German Youth Care System
Even though the German Social Act Book VIII on Youth § 42 was amended to fully include
UASYP into the protection of the youth welfare law, the B-UMF e.V. (2013) describes this as
not fully implemented. According to the association the practices differ in all federal states
and 25% of all minors are not taken into custody at all (B-UMF e.V. 2013). In the following
chapter the situation for youth in Germany in general will be described to illustrate the
context of this study.
More than half of the young people that are placed in care in Germany leave care before the
age of 18. Less than 40% leave care between the ages of 18 and 21 and less than 5% over the
age of 21. The youth care system is generally oriented at an institutionalized life course and
the support therefore focused on helping the young people succeed in education, not
becoming delinquent, living independently at a certain age and finding an employment
(Köngeter, Schröer & Zeller 2008).
The German Social Care Act (SGB VIII) provides, on the one hand, a coherent legal
framework for all 16 states in the federal republic; its implementation is, on the other hand,
left to the municipalities. Central to the SGB VIII is the right for all young people up to the
age of 27 to receive support in their upbringing and education. Here the family as the place of
upbringing is central and the state support subsidiary to family care. The state functions as a
supervisor of the parents’ care to make sure that they live up to their children’s right to a good
upbringing (Köngeter, Schröer & Zeller 2008). The provision of these services is organized
by the communal Youth Welfare Offices. Nevertheless the law provides the possibility that
these are carried out by private bodies, which are in fact the main providers of child, youth
and educational support services. The YWO though remains responsible for the care
management. This has as a result a complex situation of cooperation of parents (or legal
guardians), young people/children, private bodies and the YWOs (Köngeter, Schröer & Zeller
2008).
The main form of residential child care takes place in decentralized group homes. For young
people over the age of 16 the situation is more complex. It is in this context that the present
study is placed. The youth welfare system offers support for this group either in form of
assisted living in single or group accommodation or in form of counseling. Furthermore the
transition into vocational employment is central to this age group. Therefore the two social
laws II and III that provide support with finding employment and providing unemployment
benefits become important for care leavers. Even though the SGB VIII has strong legal
priority before the other two legal systems, apparently municipalities enforce an early
transition of care leavers into the SGB II and III systems, that instead on support and care
focus on demand and support (Köngeter, Schröer & Zeller 2008). After leaving the youth care
system the young care leavers have no access to further support by the system. This study also
looks into how social workers try to facilitate access to support networks after care. In the
following chapter national and international research findings central to this study are
presented.
4 Previous Research
In this chapter findings of previous research studies on the topic of care leaving are described.
The number of research studies on this area in Germany is limited and it appears that no
research studies have been conducted on the care leaving process of UASYP specifically.
Therefore more studies from an international context will be presented. First findings from
different countries on the care leaving process generally will be presented, followed by
studies that explicitly focused on the group of unaccompanied asylum seeking young people.
12
4.1 Germany
There has been limited research on the status passage of leaving care in Germany so far,
although the number is growing. Most research related to this topic was conducted about
different developments in the life of young people after leaving care. One of the first studies
interviewed more than 900 young people with standardized questionnaire asking about the
time after care leaving and the success rates of the care leavers in relation to employment,
legal behavior and social exclusion and highlighted the precarious situation of care leavers for
the first time (Pongratz & Hübner 1959 cited in Köngeter, Schröer & Zeller 2012). A later
study from 1987 sent questionnaires to 29 providers of public residential care about the
achieved school certificates of the young care leavers. The central result was that care leavers
had limited success in school and education (Bieback-Diel, Lauer & Schlegel-Brocke 1987
cited in Köngeter, Schröer & Zeller 2012). Another quantitative study from 1990 analyzed the
data from a Youth Welfare Agency about care leavers. Here it was concluded that institutional
care does not lead to criminal behavior or social exclusion (Bürger 1990 cited in Köngeter,
Schröer & Zeller 2012). These and more studies (Hansen 1994; Wohlfahrtsverband Baden
2000 and JULE 1998) concentrated on the effects of support during care on outcomes after
care, but less on the stage of the transition itself.
Studies with a stronger emphasis on insights into the care leavers’ experiences and on
processes during transition emerged recently. Finkel (2004) conducted 15 biographical
narrative interviews with young women three years after leaving care. He concluded that the
development of an individual life design depends on the institutional support schemes given
during the care leaving process. Another qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews
from Normann (2003) concluded that moving out of care too early can cause problems in the
process of developing an independent life design. A nationwide qualitative study (INTEGRA
1998-2003) showed that it is of relevance for young care leavers to know that there is the
possibility of continued support after leaving (Köngeter, Schröer & Zeller 2012). Research
which takes the institutional structures into account, that facilitate and shape the transition and
the transition efforts as well as resources of the young care leavers, is still lacking (Strahl,
Mangold & Ehlke 2012).
One project launched by the University of Hildesheim and the IGfH “Nach der stationären
Erziehungshilfe - Care leavers in Deutschland” is researching this presently. They have
published a first research report in January 2013. The project focuses on good practice
examples of transition support in Germany and places this into an international perspective. It
evaluates international best-practice examples from mostly European countries and analyses
possibilities for integrating those into the German systems (Thomas & Sievers 2013). First
results of qualitative interviews that were conducted with professionals in Germany as part of
the research project show that the care leaving process is rarely oriented at the needs of the
young person, but rather at the institutional structures of the care home. The funding agencies
(Youth Welfare Offices) follow the legal guidelines that a young person should live
independently at the age of 18 and only in special cases receive further institutional care.
Thomas and Sievers found that the support given during the transition seems to focus mostly
on practical skills, such as being able to do their grocery shopping, live independently and
handle their finances. Independence is constructed instead of reached naturally through an
individual maturing process. The professionals pointed out how the young people were
pushed into independence without having reached the inner state of feeling ready beforehand.
Further preliminary results are that the given support during the transition is restricted due to
financial requirements. A gradual decrease in the level of support seems not possible because
of strict separations between the funding of residential and ambulant care. After-care support
is furthermore not institutionalized and often provided on a voluntary basis; overall the
13
professionals have no information about the situation of the young people after leaving care
(Thomas & Sievers 2013). The most common transitional support seems to be in a kind of
assisted living with flexible support levels. The period of funding by the funding agencies
vary. Some provide funding until the age of 18, others until 21 (Thomas & Sievers 2013).
There is a growing number of research studies on the topic of care leavers in Germany. The
focus on their cause seems to shift from care outcomes to transition conditions. No research
though was found that was conducted on the situation of unaccompanied asylum seeking
young people leaving care. Their situation differs from their citizen peers in many ways,
especially regarding the uncertainty of their future stay in the country. It seems necessary to
conduct studies on this topic in a German context as well as in order to find out what specific
support this group needs in the transition process in order to make a successful status
trajectory.
4.2 International Research
The topic of care leaving has received more attention in an international research context.
These studies on young people leaving care in general and subsequently on unaccompanied
asylum seeking care leavers are presented in the following.
4.2.1 Care Leavers in General
Internationally there have been more research studies on the topic of the actual care leaving
process, some even with a special focus on unaccompanied asylum seeking young people.
The special situation of UASYP during the care leaving process has not been focused on
strongly in the international European research field either. However the number of researches
looking at their situation seems to be growing. General findings from the United Kingdom
(UK), Sweden, Australia, Romania and other European countries indicate that citizen care
leavers experience a compressed and more abrupt transition into adulthood than their peers
that live with their families, who on the contrary experience a prolonged transition (Barrie &
Mendes 2011; Hancilova & Knauder 2011; Höjer & Sjöblom 2011; Stein 2006; Stein 2012;
Wade et al. 2005).
A Swedish study found that there are no specific care leaving programs in Sweden. Höjer &
Sjöblom (2011) interviewed 111 care services managers. They found that the practices differ
notably throughout the municipalities but there is usually no designated “leaving care” social
worker, although some have routines or explicit plans for this transition. In the UK on the
contrary a Children’s Leaving Care ACT was passed in 2000 (CLCA) which grants every
child the right to a well-planned preparation process (Wade 2011). Despite this Wade (2011)
and also Barrie & Mendes (2011) found that citizen young people leaving care often feel illequipped for life after care. Stein (2006) reviewed international research studies and
concluded that they often leave care much earlier (at 18 instead of mid/late 20s) than their
peers leave home and are in greater danger of homelessness. He also identified that young
people and social workers in the UK often thought that the care leaving moment was too
early. Conclusions for a good preparation process were made by Stein (2012) and Wade
(2011). Stein (2012) found that good care leaving practice identifies the needs, involves the
young people in decision making, provides ongoing support, provides a continuity of staff and
has trained carers specifically for the transition. Identified areas that need special attention are
being and feeling safe, informal support (friends, networks), finances, housing, education and
employment (Stein 2012). Wade (2011) concludes, based on an evaluation of research
evidence, that preparation should take place gradually throughout the time in care in a context
of stability and security. It should facilitate the formation of new attachments and maintain
existing links and relationships. Education should furthermore be encouraged and the
preparation properly integrated into the child care planning.
14
In terms of perceptions of the young care leavers by the social workers there are some
findings from Sweden. Höjer & Sjöblom (2011) found that even though the interviewed care
managers were aware that the right time for moving out is different for each person, they
thought that the right moment to terminate care was when the young people had completed
school, not when they were personally ready for that. They furthermore lacked awareness in
recognizing the special needs of young care leavers in comparison to their peers. Another
interesting finding in this context was the fear of the social workers that the young people
might stay dependent on them. At the same time they acknowledged the young persons’ needs
for ongoing support after leaving care (Höjer & Sjöblom 2011). In another study where 16
care leavers between the ages of 18 and 22 and their parents, social workers, foster carers and
or institutional staff were interviewed they found that social work managers often revealed an
“administrative” attitude towards the situation of the young care leavers (Höjer & Sjöblom
2010).
An Australian qualitative study by Maunders et al (1999) that involved focus groups with
almost 200 care workers found that a positive experience in care, self-confidence and a
feeling of self-efficacy, the availability of mentors, ongoing support after care by the same
carers, family contact while, during transition and after care could assist the young people
during their transition. Based on their findings they suggest establishing care policy that
inhibits preparation, support during the transition and aftercare as a general model. According
to a research evaluation by Osborn & Bromfield (2007) there is a large number of research
studies in Australia evaluating care leaving policies, practices and legislation. They identify a
great need for specific care leaving policies. Mendes & Moslehuddin (2006) in this context
compared the care leaving provisions and policies in the US, UK and Australia. They found
similar concerns in the different countries regarding income inadequacy, insufficient access to
services and social networks and lack of access to employment for care leavers. Overall
Osborn & Bromfield (2007) conclude that Australian research on care leavers and their
outcomes teaches that they are at risk of negative life outcomes such as homelessness and
criminality. They need more assistance for employment, independent living, social and
emotional skills before they can live independently. They further identified that a sense of
stability, security and continuity are determinants of good care leaving outcomes. They found
recommendations for a minimum of care leaving standards and support to care leavers up to
age 25.
These studies like the majority of care leaving research did not look specifically at the context
of UASYP leaving care. In the following some research doing so will be presented.
4.2.2 Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Care Leavers
Some research in the UK has a specific focus on asylum seeking young people leaving care.
Stein (2012) found that this group often received poorer housing and care especially in respect
to care leaving services. Furthermore, this group has high levels of unmet mental health needs
and their transitions are further affected by their asylum claims (Stein 2012). Approaching the
age of 18 showed to be a stressful time for them. Their immigration status was mostly about
to expire and the future prospects very insecure. This is also a time with a big workload for
social workers, dealing now also with asylum questions. This period was therefore also
characterized by what Dixon et al. (2006) call “working with uncertainty”, which made sound
pathway planning extremely difficult. Different outcomes were possible, one being
deportation for which the young people should be equally prepared (Dixon et al. 2006).
Jim Wade (2011) focused on the intersection of social work and the asylum seeking process
in the pathway planning process. This question of pathway planning is especially relevant
concerning this group, since most of the unaccompanied children arrive as teenagers in the
15
UK and are therefore quickly confronted with the transition into an independent life.
According to Wade (2011) too little is known about what kind of support unaccompanied
asylum seeking young people need during care and in the care leaving process and about how
these young people are coping especially in comparison to their citizen peers. Some research
though suggests that unaccompanied refugees show less troublesome behavior than their
citizen peers (Dixon et al. 2006). Further findings (Dixon et al. 2006) on young people that
came to the UK as unaccompanied asylum seeking minors are that this is due to their late
arrival in the UK (usually between the age of 14 and 15) have shorter stays in the care system,
entered care at an older age and show less troublesome and criminal behavior. At the time of
leaving they were more likely to be placed in follow up supported housing than their peers
with citizenship. More research suggests that UASYP are more likely to continue education
after care (Dixon et al. 2006).
The special condition of UASYP is a general concern that makes pathway planning for this
target group more complicated and multifaceted (Wade 2011). Because of the uncertainty
regarding the future Wade (2011) suggests social work should have the resources for parallel
planning a long term future in the UK, transitional planning while not having a permanent
resident status, but also a possible return to the home country. The planning should also take
into account the different rights and entitlements these young people face in contrast to their
peers, when it comes to work, social security and education. Wade et al (2005) point out how
the circumstances of immigration status significantly influence the self-perception and future
plans of the target group. Those with a positive asylum decision were able to make plans for
their future with the feeling of having their own lives in their hands, whereas those with an
uncertain status felt that decisions over their lives were in the hands of others. So they were
not able to make plans for the future, but focused on the everyday tasks (Wade et al. 2005
cited in Wade 2011). Wade also found that the level of pathway planning depends on the level
and intensity of support of care that was given before (2011). He furthermore emphasizes the
need for legal representation and advice in the asylum seeking process as part of the pathway
planning. Those young people whose asylum claims were rejected are often allowed to stay in
the UK until the age of 18 and then have to leave. In these cases the intersection between
asylum law and social work becomes most evident and confronts the social workers with big
difficulties that they can very little do about. Wade (2011) concludes that even though the
confrontation with the prospect of having to return confronts social workers and young people
with big challenges, preparation for that should be included in the pathway planning process.
This has to be realistic, take place over time and take account of all possible outcomes (Wade
2011).
Another report focusing on UASYP confirms their precarious situation regarding their asylum
status in most European countries. Hancilova & Knauder (2011) report on the situation of
unaccompanied asylum seeking children in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France,
Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. They point out how
precarious the situation for UASYP is after turning 18. Because of losing their status as
unaccompanied minors, they also often lose their prospects on a regularized stay in the
country. Moreover in many of these countries they lose most of their resources and are often
faced with homelessness. They further drop out of education following the often sudden
relocation and worsening of life circumstances. The situation of care and support according to
this report dramatically changes for UASYP after turning 18 also in the UK; in some
countries it also means a loss of legal support and advice (Hancilova & Knauder 2011).
Findings from a research review by Mendes and Barrie (2011) on Australia and the UK
support these results. They describe how in 2007 only 11% of the UASYP in the UK were
granted asylum, while the rest had an uncertain legal status, overshadowing their lives,
16
present and futures. Mendes and Barrie (2011) show how two systems, the one of child
protection and the immigration system intersect in their situation of transition. According to
them the latter is given priority in the decision for transition and after care support. Another
deficiency they found in the UK was that UASYP are often not given appropriate pathway
planning because of their short stay in care and not all seem to enjoy their full entitlement to
transition support according to the Children’s Care Leaving Act 2000 (Barrie & Mendes
2011). Even though the UK implemented improvements concerning the transition planning
because of the CLCA 2000 on a policy level there is a lack of research concerning the actual
practices for UASYP. Barrie & Mendes (2011) emphasize that unaccompanied asylum
seeking young people leaving care are a neglected group in research and should receive more
attention to be able to meet their needs during this difficult trajectory of their lives.
5 Theoretical Framework
The way social workers chose to structure the trajectory affects the young people’s transitions
to adulthood. Theoretical considerations about the life stage of youth and the challenges
involved in the transition to adulthood can assist in analyzing the implications of the care
leaving process for the young people’s trajectory. It furthermore looked at psychological
implications of the situation of young refugees. Social capital is another perspective chosen
here. Its effects have proven to be able to provide young people with the needed resources in
order to make the transition to adulthood more successfully. Their access to social capital and
ability of generating this from the social worker’s perspective will be looked at.
5.1 Youth, Transition to Adulthood and Refugee Youth
Furlong & Cartmel (1997) suggest regarding the life stage of youth as a state of semidependency, as a bridge between the dependence of childhood and the independence of
adulthood. This concept of youth is bound to a certain social and economic context. It is
socially variable, since it is conditioned by social norms, economic circumstances and social
policies (Furlong & Cartmel 1997). Stauber & Walther (2006) refer to the stage of youth as
the time that is spent in education. This stage has not only become prolonged but also destandardized. Furling & Carmel (1997) illustrate in line with this how in the 50s and 60s
young people were able to make quite direct school to work transitions and gain financial
independence at the age of 15 or 16, which is no longer the case (Furlong & Cartmel 1997).
Stauber & Walther (2006) differentiate between different transition regimes in Europe that are
shaped by the welfare state structure and employment patterns. The German regime is an
employment-centered system based on a highly differentiated and selective school system that
separates children at the age of 10 based on their performance. This leads to only one third
gaining access to higher educational systems. Stauber & Walther (2006) formulated the
hypothesis that in this system cultural capital is no longer sufficient to make successful
transitions to adulthood, but that individualized networks of social capital are needed. Young
people all over Europe, according to Stauber & Walther (2006), have to learn how to deal
with yoyo-transitions and develop a sense of self-efficacy and self-presentation. Young
migrants are especially identified as being at risk of internalizing and individualizing
disadvantages arising from their position in society and, through that, lose aspiration and
motivation. In Germany skills are still connected to certificates needed as entry requirements
to the labor market. Transitioning under these circumstances means a constant yoyomovement. While moving towards autonomy in one area they might fall back in another area.
This combined with individualization tendencies shift responsibilities of structural short
comings to the individual and gives importance to social capital in the form of networks and
connections (Stauber & Walther 2006).
17
Young people stay dependent on their parents or the state longer than before due to prolonged
transitions from school to work life. This mostly concerns finances, which has an impact on
their autonomy in terms of living conditions. Young people have to go through different
interrelated transitions such as moving away from home, moving on from education to work
and founding their own family (Furlong & Cartmel 1997). Furlong & Cartmel (1997) argue
that in this prolonged state of youth dependency the future has often become uncertain and is
seen as filled with risks, which jeopardizes the formation and maintenance of a stable identity.
Those young people with better access to social and financial support are less vulnerable to
consequences resulting of failure and are more likely to make successful transitions. This
means that the risks of unsuccessful transitions are as unevenly distributed as the needed
resources and depend on the social position of the young person (Furlong & Cartmel 1997).
The protraction of the period of transition to adulthood can have negative consequences for
the formation of a stable identity for those young people whose future is uncertain. Young
people often perceive the current times as filled with risk and uncertainty and lack clear
frames of reference to establish adult identities (Furlong & Cartmel 1997). Weller (2011)
emphasizes how identity formation during adolescence is furthermore closely connected to
social networks. Salmela-Aro (2007) additionally points to the fact that during the transition
to adulthood social ties change. The young people disconnect from their parents and at the
same time connect to peers, who play a significantly increasing role in their lives. The
UASYP come from a different cultural and socio-economic background than citizen youth
with different conditions for the stage of youth. In this study they will nevertheless be placed
in the conditions of the host country, since that is where they spend this time of their life.
The special situation of unaccompanied asylum seeking young people also has to be looked at
from a psychological perspective. Adam & van Essen (2004) describe the phase of
adolescence as a period of separation-individuation. This means that they have the task to
separate from family ties and strive for autonomy and independence and learn to be alone. As
an unaccompanied refugee they experience an additional separation, which entails multiple
losses and creates a tremendous shock. They are faced with the challenge of finding
orientation in a new cultural system under difficult conditions. They face double loss in terms
of loss of family and environment as they leave the home cultures and countries. This
endangers their development of a stable identity. This is caused by the absence of “trusted
identification models” (Adam & van Essen 2004, p.524). That can lead to feelings of
loneliness and insecurity because autonomy is forced on to them by a separation that occurs
too suddenly, especially if it results from the deaths of the parents. Adam & van Essen (2004)
emphasize the need for a safe and secure environment as well as stable support and care to
prevent further severe obstacles for their identity development. The authors illustrate how
adolescent refugees have most often experienced traumatic events and very often suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), have a tendency towards depressive behavior and
increased anxiety. Additionally to the possible violence experienced or witnessed by the
young people they are faced with the disruption of the family which is an extremely stressful
event in the life of a young person. UASYP face an accumulation of distress causing factors.
These factors are the situation in their home countries that exposed them to chronic stress,
followed by the flight itself that in many cases lasted for years during which they faced severe
difficulties, abuse, further violence and loss. Another strain is the situation in the host country
where they face role conflicts, language difficulties and legal problems. These strains cause
symptoms similar to PTSD such as insomnia, lack of concentration, impulsive outbursts,
avoidance, anxiety and intrusive thoughts and feelings. Adam & van Essen (2004) summarize
to the point the problems refugee young people face in exile:

“Personal, community, and cultural losses;
18






Multiple separations and need for parental and family support and care;
Familial conflicts ad psychic disturbances;
Long-lasting uncertainty as to acquiring residency in the new country and
starting up a normal life;
Minimal facilities and common violence in reception centers;
Limitations to education and freedom of movement;
Social marginalization and discrimination.” (529)
They identify negative consequences for their mental stability because of living in exile
without mutual support systems. In the host country they face strong disadvantages compared
to the youth from the host society. Even if they now live in better conditions they face very
little chances for social development (Adam & van Essen 2004). Posttraumatic reactions are
provoked by the uncertainty and insecurity in their present lives. The uncertainty of their stay
in the country triggers the reliving of previous traumatic events and enforces the tendency of
children and adolescents to expect a repetition of traumatic events. This hinders them in
developing positive expectations for the future and long-term perspectives. Here Adam & van
Essen (2004) emphasize strongly how it is a misunderstanding that the most traumatic events
of a young refugee lay in the past and that problems concerning the asylum claim in the host
country were merely minor factors. They identify the accumulation of stress from the past,
present and expected future as the contributing factors to the adolescent’s psychopathology.
They identify the present stress caused by the uncertainty of stay as the main hindering factor
for coping with their past experiences. For treatment Adam & van Essen (2004) advise among
others to reestablish safety and predictability and focus on regaining control. This refers to the
problems associated with their feeling of not being able to decide about their lives and being
in control. If the feeling of helplessness dominates it is a great obstacle in developing
independence and autonomy (Adam & van Essen 2004).
5.2 Social Capital
Even though the concept of social capital is discussed, applied and understood in various
ways it can be broadly understood as the “values that people hold and the resources that they
can access, which both result in and are the results of collective and socially negotiated ties
and relationships” (Edwards, Franklin & Holland 2003: 2). This usually takes place with
people that have a similar background in values and norms. Putnam and Coleman who are
both theorists of social capital highlight, according to Reynolds (2011), the importance of
resources in this context that emerge and are reproduced through social networks. Reynolds
(2011) illustrates Putnam’s differentiation of social capital into its ability of creating
‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ networks. Bonding is the aspect of social capital that is directed
inwards into a homogenous group and trust and reciprocity within this. Bridging, on the other
hand, is directed outwards and considered that kind of social capital that builds connections
between different social groups and generates inter-community contacts (Reynolds 2011).
The strong bonding networks within ethnic groups seem to indicate that people like to connect
to people with similar socio-cultural factors. Here the possibility exists that young people
develop negative social capital, for example if their networks restrict them in choosing their
own lifestyles. It may also reinforce unequal power relations within ethnic groups. (Reynolds
2011). Helve (2007) also points out how these bonding relationships within groups can lead to
social exclusion in wider social networks during the transition to adulthood in contrast to
bridging social capital. Both Putnam and Coleman are criticized for not sufficiently
considering how social networks reproduce patterns of inequalities such as class, ethnic and
gender inequalities (Reynolds 2011).
19
Bourdieu (1986) on the other hand regards social capital as a reproducer of inequality and
furthermore identifies more forms of capital that are important in this process such as cultural
and economic capital (Reynolds 2011). Economic capital can be transformed directly into
money whereas the other forms need certain conditions to develop. Cultural capital is
inherited and embodied by the whole family. It is therefore accumulated throughout the
socialization process. This time of accumulation of cultural capital depends on the time
disposable the family can give to the person that is free from economic necessity (Bourdieu
1986). Cultural capital is further described as embodied goods and dispositions and also
comprises education (Tolonen 2007). This kind of capital is acquired quite unconsciously
according to Bourdieu (1986) in contrast to social capital. Social capital depends on the other
kinds of capital. These influence the volume of social capital one can accumulate as well as
the size of network one can mobilize. Symbolic capital is the shape either of these forms of
capital can take on if recognized and perceived as legitimate. This means that those with
power in society are able to use their social networks more effectively (Tolonen 2007).
Stauber & Walther (2006) emphasize how the possibility for ‘bridging’ social capital should
be facilitated on a policy level. Even though the networks between social groups are often
based on weaker obligations of reciprocity they can provide new possibilities and open gates
to the labor market. They further emphasize young peoples’ needs for emotionally charged
relationships that give support, safety comfort and encouragement. Experiences of social
isolation here can go along with demotivation and cutting off of social relationships. Families
as well as professionals or other adult key persons are important providers of ‘weak and
strong ties’ as well as peers and youth cultural systems (Stauber & Walther 2006).
According to Barn (2011) care leavers are often required to make the transition from care to
no care and from dependence to independence earlier than youth living at home and do not
have the possibility to rely on their families if they fail. They are lacking the safety and
support network of a family and additionally often experience instability in their placement.
This leads to a sense of uprootedness and lack of belonging. The results are social exclusion
and marginalization, but also “questionable ways of making sense of their ethnic identities”
(Barn 2011). According to Barn (2011) social capital is therefore a worthy concept for
analyzing the situation of young people leaving care. The author spotlights the additional
vulnerability of ethnic minority care leavers. They not only experience loss and bereavement,
loss of family and friendship ties, loss of neighborhood networks, instability in care, but also
racial and ethnic discrimination. Research suggests that access to family and community
networks indicates access to social capital (Barn 2011). Barn (2011) assumes that care leavers
that have experienced loss and instability in their upbringing have difficulties maintaining a
sense of community networks, trust and reciprocity. The author identifies certain key factors
that promote connectedness among care leavers. These are education, work and community
networks (apart from good relations to the birth families). Trust and reciprocity are born out
of access to family and community networks. Young people growing up in care are in danger
of losing these ties due to instability experiences in their upbringing. The transition from care
to the community is a further crucial experience that might leave the young people very much
alone. Barn (2011) found in her study the precarious upbringing experiences and the
implications for their transition from care to community and into adulthood. The absence of
stable family and other networks and the instability experienced during their upbringing have
a “cumulative effect”. This can lead to homelessness, unemployment, criminal behavior,
substance abuse and young parenthood but also to low confidence, low self-esteem, lack of
belongingness and feelings of isolation and marginalization. Stability and permanence are
shown to be the most important factors (Barn 2011).
20
Some authors have criticized the use of the concept of social capital. The criticism concerns
the lack of consideration of social inequalities and their reproduction in social networks,
especially in the concepts of Coleman and Putnam, and their limitation to one form of capital.
The strongest criticism, according to Tolonen (2007), concerns the fact that the concept uses
economic terminology to determine the quality and use of social relationships. This suggests
that social networks are considered as goods that can be traded. The danger in using economic
terms and a concept that can be interpreted in a way that economic inequalities can be
compensated by investing in social networks is that it can hide these inequalities that exist in
young people’s lives. Another criticism is that the concept seems to fit elite groups of society
best and may conceal resources of less privileged groups in society. Tolonen (2007) notes that
even if they do not have access to many social contacts they might have a strong resource in
the few close relationships they have, such as to one relative. It is furthermore important to
also place them in the economic sphere and acknowledge inequalities instead of expecting
social capital to substitute financial resources (Tolonen 2007). Therefore it is suggested to
also explore the young people’s agency in addition to their cultural and social capital. They
should be considered as creators of social and cultural capital and not only as victims of
shortcomings in welfare and upbringing (Tolonen 2007).
As described above there are certain shortcomings of the concept of social capital in
analyzing the situation of young people. The concept is useful to analyze how their access to
cultural and social capital affects their position in the social order. Tolonen (2007) notes how
Bourdieu’s concept seems to focus only on already privileged young people and seems to
leave out the possibility that less privileged ones can also benefit from their social ties. This
also applies to the young people at the center of this study as their status as refugees puts them
into a disadvantaged position in society. The perception of the social workers on the young
people’s access to and their active generation of social capital is here analyzed. It is looked at
how they try to facilitate the access to social and cultural capital despite their position to
enable a stable development of identity and successful transition into adulthood. In a first step
the methodology used to collect the data and theoretical, practical as well as ethical
considerations are discussed.
6 Methodology
The aim of this study is to explore the situation of unaccompanied asylum seeking young
people leaving care. The previous research on this topic is very limited and in Germany, as far
as the author could find out, non-existent. Therefore this study has a strong explorative and
also descriptive focus to be able to provide an overview of what kind of topics might be
relevant for further research. This is why a qualitative method was chosen. According to
Padgett (1998) qualitative methods are appropriate to explore new fields and discover
hypotheses inductively instead of testing already existing explanatory models. Qualitative
studies try to holistically grasp the complex worlds of the respondents, while the researcher is
its main instrument of data collection. The researcher seeks an in-depth understanding of the
topic (Padgett 1998). This was the main motivation behind this study as well. The lack of
research in the field and the strong interest in in-depth rich descriptions and exploration of the
subjects’ experiences made qualitative research the most appropriate method.
Categories in qualitative research are derived from the raw material rather than through precoded questionnaires. Empirical data is systematically collected using a flexible approach.
The primary motivation according to Deborah Padgett (1998) should be the “thirst for
knowledge and understanding” (11). Padgett (1998) illustrates the significance of the
researcher in controlling and directing the process. She mentions qualities such as creativity,
21
self-discipline, maturity and the ability to keep a critical distance and withhold judgment as
much as possible. Researchers also must be flexible and reflexive. The success of a study
according to Padgett (1998) relies on these abilities and on being able to go with the flow
rather than control it.
These criteria and guidelines directed this study. Already in the beginning it became apparent
that the researcher had to be flexible and go with the flow. In this study social workers were
interviewed. Due to this it is their perspective this study is about, even though the subject is
the situation of the young care leavers. This is mainly due to practical reasons. The
preparation of the research collection had to be carried out from Sweden. It made it quite
complicated to get hold of potential interviewees, especially young people that were in the
process of leaving care or had already left. It turned out that they were either suspicious of
this kind of inquiry and would have needed a personal meeting before the interviews to get to
know the researcher. Another reason was that many unaccompanied young people had already
taken part in studies of students during their stay in care and were not interested in further
sharing their experiences. Due to this and the limited time frame it was chosen to only
interview social workers. The scope of this study therefore is to explore the way social
workers and the system structure this transition and how they perceive the young people in
this. Based on this, conclusions and hypotheses can be drawn on what implications this might
have for the young peoples’ experience, which then should be deeper explored in further
studies.
6.1 Design of study
The data collection was done using semi-structured interviews, which Kvale (1996) describes
as the most common method in qualitative research. The interview guide was developed by
looking at previous research results on this topic that were conducted in the UK or also on
general care leavers.
The identified themes were:





The structure of the care leaving process
The intersection of social work with the asylum system
The relationships of the young people
The perception of the young people in terms of social capital
Cooperation with other institutions
The interviews were kept open and flexible and the researcher tried to follow up the themes
the social workers touched upon. Due to this new themes emerged and preexistent themes
showed to be less relevant than anticipated. The interviews were all started with a short
introduction to the topic. The researcher hereby explained her interest in the care leaving
process of unaccompanied young asylum seeking people, how this process is structured, how
their role as social workers in this process is and how they perceive the young people. The
interviews were all started using the same generating question, although the wording of the
question was adapted to each specific interview context. From there the researcher would
follow up and use the interview guide to cover the before mentioned themes.
Generating question:

Could you start with describing to me in as much detail as possible how the care
leaving process is structured and organized? Please start with telling me about the
moment when it is decided that the young person has to move out. Who decides this
and what happens next?
22
This question turned out to be open enough so that most interviewees started with a detailed
description of the time, reasons and involved actors in this process. The interview guide can
be found in the appendix of this study.
6.2 Recruitment Process
Qualitative research focuses on depths rather than width and sampling strategies are oriented
at convenience and non-probability techniques (Padgett 1998). Some contacts to social
workers were established already while still trying to recruit young people to participate in the
study. For this purpose emails were sent to managers of institutions that provide residential
care for the target group. Even though several institutions were contacted only one institution
replied and three social workers agreed to take part. In this organization a private contact
existed that could encourage the supervisor to support the study. Other than that it was
difficult to get responses from organizations where the researcher had no preexisting contacts.
In the end all respondents were recruited using preexisting private connections to social
workers in the field. Because of that two of the respondents were previously known to the
researcher. These more intimate relations to the researcher have influenced the interviews.
This will be reflected upon in the following section.
6.3 Reflections on Researcher – Respondent Dynamics
Padgett (1998) describes how the researcher influences the research process. She emphasizes
attributes such as gender, race, age and social class as the factors needing most attention
because they significantly affect the process and are not possible to influence by the
researcher. The status of the researcher and the respondents were quite similar. Both were
educated social workers in the same system, of the same nationality, though not always from
the same ethnic background. They were, except in one case, of the same sex and in six out of
nine cases approximately of the same age group. The researcher though had no practical
experience of the research field and also has been living and studying the last two years
abroad and was therefore not very familiar with all aspects of the field. This rendered the
participants as clear experts and often became obvious during the interviews when they used
technical terms or abbreviations, that the researcher was not familiar with. Nevertheless the
relationship can be characterized as quite balanced in power and knowledge. The researcher
generally felt more inferior rather than superior to the participants and was always a bit
anxious about asking “stupid” or irrelevant questions due to the lack of inside and
professional knowledge on the topic. The researcher was also aware of resentments against
theory and academia in the German social work practice and felt a critical attitude by at least
one participant of the study. This led to insecurity of the researcher during the interview and
possibly influenced the kind of follow up questions that were asked. In another interview the
researcher also perceived a certain degree of suspiciousness during the interview. The
respondent seemed to find the questions weird and the researcher got quite insecure due to
this during the course of the interview. This might also have influenced the way of asking.
The situation was resolved after the recorder was turned off and the situation clarified. The
respondent had been pressured into doing the interview by the supervisor and thought that the
organization had a certain interest in the study. When the questions did not match this
assumption it confused the respondent. The researcher had been unaware of this situation and
felt uneasy about this. The discussion about it after the interview though relieved the tension
caused by this and the researcher decided to use the interview for the analysis after getting
consent of the respondent for this. The situation of the interviews where the researcher and the
respondents knew each other was quite different on the other hand. The atmosphere was
informal and the researcher could perceive a difference in their way of giving rich and
detailed accounts of their work more freely. This also led one interviewee to say more than
23
once: “Oh, am I even allowed to share this information?” The information of this interview is
used carefully with consent of the interviewee and special consideration is paid to the
protection of anonymity.
There are different levels of involvement of the researcher into the field (Padgett 1998). The
researcher in this study stayed quite detached and impartial in this process. The insight is
restricted to the verbal accounts of the respondents. Five of the interviews were conducted in
the social workers’ offices. In these settings it was very quiet and there were no interruptions.
All of the participants reserved at least one to one and a half hours for the interviews. Since
the interviews themselves only lasted between 40 and 70 minutes there was sufficient time for
an informal chat before and after. Many respondents seemed to open up more after the
recorder was turned off and continued expressing their opinions about the topics and provided
further useful information that was also used for the analysis. One interview took place at the
home of one respondent, which also provided a very calm and focused atmosphere for the
interview. Two interviews were conducted in public places including a bar and a café,
because there were no other possibilities. This was rather inconvenient because it turned out
to be quite loud in the facilities and the respondents as well as the researcher were less
focused. Nevertheless given the circumstance the interviews were able to provide detailed and
rich accounts, although it can be assumed that these might have been even more valuable if
conducted in a more suitable environment.
6.4 Data Management
The interviews were recorded with the consent of the respondents and transcribed verbatim.
They were conducted in German, so quotes used in this paper were translated into English.
The researcher carried out these translations carefully, despite not having any special
translating skills. It has to be considered therefore that these translations might change the
intended meaning of the original statements. In the appendix a list of the original quotes
together with their translations can be found.
During the process of transcribing the interviews the material was already coded. This means
that the interviews were re-organized according to meaning units. Here the approach by
Padgett (1998) was followed. In this first stage open coding was used, which means that the
text was not scanned for certain pre-existing concepts but with an open mind. After this the
interviews were scanned again, searching for new themes and also for themes according to the
research questions and interview themes. This way it was a circular process moving from
inductive to deductive and back as Padgett (1998) describes it. After the coding Padgett’s
suggestion was followed to formulate themes and arrange the various categories according to
these. Following this the researcher returned to the initial research questions and the themes
were organized according to these. From there the material was organized and analyzed. This
means that the material was interpreted and given a meaning. The researcher here coconstructed a meaning, since this is not inherent to the text itself (Schreier 2012).
6.5 Ethical Considerations
Waldrop (2004) summarizes the standard requirements for ethical research as giving a short
description of the study protocol, identifying the researcher and sponsor of the study,
providing contact information and assuring that the participation is fully voluntary and can be
terminated at any point. This information was provided orally right before the interview and
recorded on tape. They were also conveyed in the emails, when recruiting the participants. As
the informants were social workers that were asked about another target group the need to
protect them as subjects of the study does seem of great importance. They themselves had
little concern about participating in the study. Almost all of them interrupted the briefing
before the interview about privacy and informed consent. However as Kvale (1996) notes
24
interviews are always characterized by a clear asymmetry in power. Only the researcher asks
questions, these can be manipulative and the topic is not open to both but is decided upon by
the researcher. In this case, as described before, these power relations were not as clear as
Kvale (1996) describes them. The interviewees had the possibility to not answer questions or
not answer them in a way the researcher intended to. Nevertheless the researcher was aware
of her dominating role in the process. Attempts were made to avoid too much leading by
formulating questions as open as possible, follow the respondents in their reports instead of
sticking too much to the interview guide. Directing the interviews could not fully be avoided
though since, as described, certain areas of interest were identified beforehand that the
researcher asked about. Also during the analysis the researcher has the monopole of
interpretation (Kvale 1996). This has to be borne in mind and as mentioned the researcher
tried to stick as much as possible to the intended meaning, always assuming that the
researcher and interviewees had a similar background in education (all social workers), class,
ethnicity (nationality) and even gender (except in one case).
6.6 Validity, Reliability and Generalization
Qualitative research does not aim to be generalizable to other sites or groups or to be
representative of the larger community. The aim is to gain rich and deep information of a
topic and to rather find atypical examples to explore the richness of human diversity (Padgett
1998). This study therefore does not aim to give an overview of the situation of all care
leavers in Hamburg. Since the practice differs between the different states in Germany
findings might also differ if the interviews were conducted in a different state. One or two
interviewees even expressed the concern after the interviews that what they reported was not
what would normally be done. They felt that their organizations were providing especially
good care beyond what was normally done. The researcher was then able to reassure them
that what they said is extremely valuable and important and fulfills the scope of this study.
However throughout the analysis it is kept in mind that the findings might actually portray
quite positive examples of practice. This study is therefore not representative.
The most debated question about qualitative research according to Deborah Padgett (1998) is
the question about rigor, hence about the degree of authenticity of the findings and the
credibility of their interpretation. In the present study it is assumed that a social reality is
disputable which would according to the positivism vs. constructionism debate render the
question applying reliability and validity the same way as in quantitative research little useful
for qualitative research. Nevertheless it is agreed with Padgett that rigor is necessary, but that
quantitative criteria are not appropriate. She therefore suggests using trustworthiness as the
main criteria. This is reached through a study being carried out fairly, ethically and
representing findings that are as close as possible to the respondents’ experiences (Padgett
1998). This study attempted to achieve this by trying to set aside, as much as possible,
preconceptions and biases on part of the researcher during the data collection and analysis
phase. For this they first need to be identified after which it is possible to consciously try to
develop a distance to these preconceptions. This of course is difficult, especially since the
subjects of the research were from the same group in society as the researcher. According to
Deborah Padgett (2004) it is questionable to use qualitative research methods to study one’s
own professional colleagues. Even though she points out that the inherent biases are not
insurmountable one should be careful, since the interest might too often be led by personal
preconceptions due to own experience, instead of curiosity. This can result in asking leading
questions or to ignorance of data that does not support their assumptions (Padgett 1998). This
was borne in mind during the conduction of the interviews and furthermore during the
analysis to reduce the level of bias as much as possible. Of course this goes as well for the
respondents. They might give answers they think are “good” or withhold information (Padgett
25
1998). The researcher tried to reduce this by asking thorough follow up questions and taking
on a distanced stance and stress that the knowledge about the field was very limited and
curiosity lead the study. The researcher furthermore tried to verify as much as possible the
understood meaning of their information.
Considering these questions of rigor it can be concluded, that even though the circumstances
under which the interviews were conducted were not all completely perfect, a great effort was
made to conduct a trustworthy study through constant reflection. It is possible that a similar
investigation would find similar results and that the bias of the researcher was reduced as
much as possible.
6.7 Limitations
It is important to note a couple of limitations of this study. As it was described before the
recruitment of participants was quite difficult and five of the participants worked in the same
organization. This limits the variety of information, even though they worked in different
projects it can be assumed that the conditions do not vary strongly within one social work
provider in the same city. Nevertheless the sample consists of social workers with different
levels of experience and different age levels. Both sexes are represented, even though only
one of the respondents was male. Furthermore the situation of UASYP and their access to
social capital is subject of this study. The possibility of assessing this through the accounts of
social workers is of course limited. Another factor is that the participants in this study mostly
worked with UAS- males and therefore did not specifically describe the situation for
unaccompanied refugee girls. Their situation, needs and networks might differ from the one
of young men so that in this study only their situation will be focused on. The results and
conclusion will therefore be limited to this group.
The interviews were structured according to themes chosen based on previous research
findings on the subject in the UK and other countries. These were considered important to
answer the research questions. At the same time they also limited the topics covered in the
interviews in a way, since the respondents were directed to talk about something which might
leave out something else. Each respondent was given the possibility to address further
important issues at the end of the interviews freely. They mostly reported that they felt that
everything they themselves found important had been covered, but some added more thoughts
on a topic that had only been briefly touched upon during the interviews.
7 Results and Analysis
In this chapter the findings are presented and in a further step analyzed and discussed through
the previously outlined theories (ch. 5). The findings are further compared to the research that
has already been conducted in the field.
7.1 The Respondents
The nine interviewed social workers represent a small range of different work settings. Four
of them work in youth homes that are aimed at preparing young people to be able to live
independently (§30 SGB VIII). In these settings the young people live mostly independently
in a shared apartment and have care workers coming in during day time. At night they often
have a live-in contact person that can be consulted in emergencies. Three of these four
respondents worked in the same organization, two of them even with the same young people.
One of these two was male.
26
Three social workers work in organizational owned housing4. These are flats or rooms that
can be rented by the young people and are connected to ambulant care that is assigned or
granted on an hourly basis by the YWO. These assigned hours can vary, according to the
young person’s needs as identified by the YWO.
One of the respondents worked for 20 years in a YWO as a caseworker for UASC and is now
working as a legal guardian for young people, among which she is also responsible for
UASC. Another interviewee is currently working as a responsible caseworker for UASC at a
Youth Welfare Office in Hamburg since 2,5 years after finishing her studies.
To be able to allocate the used quotes to the respondents the interviewees will be numbered.
Social worker 1: female, 1 year of work experience, works in youth home that is aimed at
preparing young people for independent living, aged between 16-21. The young people live in
small groups together in flats. The care takes place in an ambulant setting with care and
support during the day.
Social worker 2: male, more than 10 years of work experience, same setting as social worker
1
Social worker 3: female, ca. 2,5 years of work experience in YWO, case worker for UASYP.
Social worker 4: female, ca. 3-4 years of work experience, similar setting to 1 & 2
Social worker 5: female, ca. 2 years in the field, ambulant setting like 1,2 and 4, care only up
to age 18.
Social worker 6: female, ca. 3 years of work experience, ambulant support of 16-21 year old
UASYP and citizen young people in organizational owned housing.
Social worker 7: female, ca. 20 years of experience in YWO, responsible case worker for
UASYP, now legal guardian for young people, also UASYP.
Social Worker 8&9: female, both ca. 3-4 years of work experience. Care from UASYP aged
16-21 in organizational owned housing.
7.2 Findings and Analysis: Care Leaving Process
7.2.1 Findings: Care Leaving Process
The care leaving process and the way the social workers structure it is first presented,
followed by an analysis done mostly through previous research but also theoretical
considerations on the stage of youth and the developmental task of transitioning to adulthood.
7.2.1.1 Lack of Guidelines
In the present study the social workers generally perceive the care leaving process as
institutionally unstructured due to a lack of guidelines and open to their own individual
structuring. They emphasize that what they described, was the way, they personally do it and
not how it is normally done.
“The transition from youth care to independent living is not structured per se,
but has to somehow, (...)5 it needs to be structured.” (SW 9: 255-261)
4
5
Trägereigener Wohnraum
Brackets indicate that part of the quote was removed if it was not contributing to the theme.
27
“But that is rather my individual style.” (SW 3: 120)
This lack of guidelines in the process leaves the young people’s pathway planning up to the
individual social worker’s efforts. Social worker 4 stresses how the way the young people are
prepared in her work place is the exception and she gives an example of a previous workplace
where there was no or only insufficient trained staff and young people were released into
homelessness, without school degrees, at an early age. The other respondents express a
similar view by pointing out how much it depends on them if the young people receive any
kind of pathway planning and preparation for care leaving. Social worker 9 expresses concern
about how she and her colleague had to structure the care leaving without any guidelines.
They were confronted with a very difficult situation and would have liked more support and
guiding in this process.
However, the respondents in this study still describe more or less the same steps and factors
that determine the end of care. These will be described in the following.
7.2.1.2 Factors that determine end of care
Age
As one of the most determining factors for the time for leaving care all social workers refer to
the age of the young people. In contrast to the aforementioned lack of structure and guidelines
the interviewees perceive the age limit of care leaving as too strictly structured and set by the
law and Youth Welfare Offices. Almost all of them orient the end of care at the age of 21.
They further stress how this also means that care would normally end earlier than that and
only continue until this deadline if really necessary.
“Then there is the limit at the age of 21. Then it really is the end of the road.
Then you have to [move out]6” (SW 1: 162-163)
The conviction of 21 being the deadline for care is very strong in all respondents, even the
one working in the YWO. Only social worker 2 strongly disagrees.
“Interviewer (Int): and legally the deadline is 21, right? SW 2: No, that is also
wrong, that is wrong. (..) It is simply wrong information, where the Social Act
(SGB VIII) is interpreted wrongly. Int: By the YWO? SW 2: Yes yes of
course. And my colleagues also believe it, because someone once told them
And now last year we just had two cases, where we could get around it, but
that is really, really what means get around it, where we applied for an
exception got it granted here for young people, that originally, although they
were 21.” (SW 2: 437-456).
Even though he points to this possibility of prolonging the youth care he illustrates how
difficult it is to get the approval of the YWO. It is therefore more an exception than the norm,
even if social workers are aware of it. Other than this, based on the respondents accounts the
process is strictly oriented at the age of 21. The respondents emphasize how the young people
would be confronted with negative consequences such as homelessness and social exclusion if
the social workers do not manage to find the young people a flat by the 21st birthday, find an
education or work and/or settle unresolved residence questions. Only one interviewed social
worker orients the moment of care leaving at the age of 18, due to internal organizational
demands and financial pressures. The other interviewees try to push the time of moving out to
the age of 20 so that the young people can receive ambulant after care in their own flats after
6
Square brackets are used to indicate remarks by the author to clarify the used quote.
28
moving out until the age of 21. The interviewees perceive this deadline as too strict and not
always oriented at the needs and life situation of the young people. Some wish for a general
prolongation of this deadline. Others see this in most cases as appropriate, but wish for a more
flexible system in cases where longer care would exceptionally be needed. The social workers
strongly emphasize the need to accompany the young people at least until they’ve obtained a
minimal degree of education and by that point to the need of synchronizing the care leaving
moment with other transitions.
Synchronization with other transitions
The respondents explain how they try to synchronize the moving out date with other events in
the young people’s lives. They should not be confronted with more than one transition task at
the same time. Especially the graduation from school is given special attention and should be
accomplished before leaving care. Many express the concern that the young people might fail
or not pursue their education without the encouragement and support given by social workers
while in care. Furthermore social worker 2 reflects on the fact that being in your own flat for
the first time is a significant and difficult moment. He thinks that the young people should not
be confronted with having to study for school exams at the same time. Social worker 7 refers
to the transition of young people not in care. Those young people would also not be kicked
out by their parents if they were just about to graduate from school. Social worker 3 as a case
manager in a YWO even emphasizes the possibility to continue care beyond the age of 21 for
a couple of weeks if this moment collides with school graduation.
“Well what I always, as a point is, ok, as long as they go to school, that is the
essential thing, education, and there [in this case] the one should in any case be
accompanied to a secure point.” (SW 4: 48-50)
Definitions of being “ready”
Another aspect for determining the care leaving moment is the support needs of the young
people. Here the respondents almost solely refer to practical skills. The skills the social
workers emphasize in this study are cooking, cleaning, handling finances and also knowing
how to get help, making phone calls by themselves and dealing with administrative
organizations and understanding the asylum system.
“It’s a lot about reliability, is it there? Are you sufficiently concerned about
yourself? Yes, or rather, there are also areas, there you can’t expect that they
have the full overview in respect of the migration and asylum laws, the
administrative structures, also that is a huge huddle and there, well to this point
I expect that they have understood it. Where do I get my money from, where
do I get other papers and if needed, knowing here I get help. So until there,
that’s what they should be able to.” (SW 4: 61-67)
Few respondents refer to other factors other than practical skills as indicators for being ready.
Social worker 2 refers to a certain sense of reality as needed before leaving care. He expects
the young people to know that the outcome of their lives depend to a large extent on
themselves and their own actions. He also connects this to practical skills, such as knowing
how to pay rent, understanding the consequences of signing contracts, but also dealing with
failure and throwbacks.
“Settled, well they first have a, well a sense of, I mean developed a quite
funded sense of reality. That a lot depends on them, what regards their future
life and that they yes, gained an awareness - I have to go about my things
29
myself, self-dependently, I have to tackle my things independently.” (SW 2:
101-105)
Apart from this some social workers mention mental stability and self-esteem as desirable
goals and necessary attributes when the young people leave care. These perceive the
unaccompanied refugees as very capable in terms of practical skills, already on arrival. They
attribute this to the fact that they were forced to take care of themselves often at a very early
age, such as 12 or 13 years old. In contrast to that they identify gaps in fields of personal
internal qualities and in terms of psychological stability.
“And I think, well in my opinion they need a lot of stabilization and selfesteem, in order to be able at all to participate constructively in society, and
that they can get in youth care.” (SW 9: 316-318)
A further important requirement they identify for unaccompanied minors is the level of
knowledge of the language. Without a certain level of knowledge they perceive the ability of
the young people to cope with authorities and administrative procedures as insufficient. This
they identify as a reason for the young people to a longer stay in youth care. This connects to
their concern about a thorough understanding of the new society they came to live in. More
than one interviewee mentions how even if the young people are capable in terms of the
required practical skills and even personally mature, they might still lack the necessary
understanding of the new culture, legal and administrative systems and language.
Possibilities for aftercare
Ongoing support after moving out and living in their own flats is also only provided until the
age of 21. Again here the practice seems to contradict the law as Social Worker 2 and 7
indicate. Based on the current interpretation of the law, aftercare is granted up to the age of
21. To facilitate this, the interviewed social workers try to have the young people move out at
the age of 20. They see benefits in reducing the level of support gradually, instead of leaving
the young people to themselves from one day to another. Again the question of aftercare is
granted depends to a great extent on the YWO in charge. Most social workers emphasize how
it is not the norm but something they have to intensively argue and advocate for.
Contradicting this, social worker 1 expresses the view that aftercare is normally granted for
three months. The social workers criticize repeatedly this strict restriction of care to the age of
21. If a young person is not ready at 20 and they have the possibility to support him longer
intensively they could only do this at the cost of ongoing ambulant care. In most cases the
aftercare is provided by the same organization as before. However this is dependent on
several factors, such as the YWO preference, staff capacities, and organizational conditions.
Social worker 5, for example, explains how due to internal regulations every young person
has to leave his care place at the age of 18. They always advocate for the provision of
aftercare at the YWO, which would normally be granted. In most cases though it is carried out
by other institutions and a change in care worker would take place. Another issue they pointed
out is that many services the young people have access to are bound to the youth care system.
“Then you could see that you let them move out from here at the age of 20,
that they still stay within the organization, that they can maybe get ambulant
aftercare. Then the lawyer would still be in charge for them and the therapist
could also maybe still be available to them.” (SW 9: 562-566)
This means that if they exhaust the time for more intensive care until 21 the young people
have to make the transition to independence from one day to another. Only if the social
30
workers make them move out before 21 they have the chance to gradually reduce support and
also accompany the young people during their first steps to full independence.
7.2.1.3 Limited participation
The deciding parties in the care leaving process are mostly the care workers and to a great
extent the YWOs. Further structural factors such as the law and financial pressures limit their
range of discretion. Only marginally the young people themselves are mentioned as active
deciding agents in the process. Only social worker 4 explicitly states that she waits for them
to mention the wish to move out before bringing it up and as the only one describes the
process as a joint cooperation. The other respondents describe the young people’s
involvement more like a kind of one-way-involvement. They all point out how it was of
course possible to leave care earlier if they wish for that. On the other hand if the YWO
decides that they need no more care, they have no or very little influence. Social workers 1
and 7 thought that the YWO is more likely to extend care if the young person himself
motivates his need for ongoing support. Social worker 2 on the other hand sees no
possibilities for them to influence the extension of care, much in line with the other
respondents’ view.
Some respondents only illustrate cases where young people see the care system as a safe
haven out of which they want to move out as late as possible. Others see them as being in a
developmental stage where they rather strive for autonomy and detachment from adults
instead of developing new close dependencies. Social worker 5 describes the situation where
the young people want to leave care before 18 but are kept longer, because they are not seen
as ready. As reasons for this she refers to reluctance in adapting to the peers they live with,
especially if coming from other cultures and also because of not being able to live their own
culture to the extent they would like to. Social worker 3 also points to their ambitions of
autonomy they have at the age 18 to 21. Social worker 7 bases this on the fact that they have
never experienced support and learned to only trust themselves. She and social worker 2 see it
as an important life task they accomplish while placed in care, to build close relationships
with the support persons and newly or for the first time learn to trust. Another point
connecting to participation is illustrated by social worker 3 that emphasizes the young
people’s need to constructively cooperate to be eligible for further care after turning 18.
“If they no longer cooperate with me as the Youth Welfare Office, then they
are out. If they massively don’t cooperate. Just because they say once: I won’t
do it, of course that’s not enough.” (SW 3: 559-561)
Social worker 5 describes this in more detail after the interview was already terminated. She
then describes the time between the age of 18 to 21 as a time where the YWO could
arbitrarily use the young people’s obligation to force them into complying with their
demands. She illustrates that it is not clearly operationalized what this obligation entails and
therefore exposes the young people to blackmailing by the YWOs. Here the one way
character of the participation of the youth in the care leaving becomes even more apparent.
7.2.1.4 Role of social workers in this process
The social workers see themselves as the main gatekeepers to the new country and facilitators
of integration.
“But that after 3 years I still discuss with them why a woman is allowed to do this and
that, or someone, how sexuality works in Germany or such things. That they
[society/authorities] don’t understand that they [UASYP] don’t learn that in shelters
for asylum seekers, but that they are expected to understand that, when they come
31
here, well it is sad. They should all have a support person to be able to live here in a
socially acceptable way, right? In a socially acceptable way in the sense that what one
expects from them, to work here, not to stick out, right? So. To behave as a good
German, right? (laughs), ok that was irony, right?” (SW 8: 539-546)
The respondents further put strong emphasis on connecting the youth already during care to
support networks that would assist them after leaving care. They mainly mention the same
institutions such as NGOs and foundations offering support and counseling to refugees and
young care leavers. The social workers emphasize that the support network of social workers,
therapists, lawyers and also guardians is bound to the youth care system and would break
away after leaving care.
Social worker 2 further assigns the social workers the role as advocates for the young people
in the process.
“And if they don’t want that [leave care], which most of them don’t and then it
comes [by the YWO]: Care leaving is the next goal, then they don’t have
anything to say. There they are very clearly dependent on us.” (SW 2: 421423).
7.2.2 Analysis: Care Leaving Process
Stein (2012) and Wade (2011) emphasize the need for a thorough, structured pathway
planning to facilitate a successful transition. This appears to be at stake in the practice in
Hamburg, since there are no guidelines and structural demands for the care leaving process.
Guidelines based on research results and knowledge about the transition to adulthood could
ensure a transition oriented at the UASYP’s needs as Australian and German researchers also
demanded (Finkel 2004; Maunders et al 1999; Osborn & Bromsfield 2007) In this study the
lack of guidelines could also be seen as a chance for the social workers to shape the care
leaving process according to the young people’s individual needs instead of having to follow
general guidelines. This might be supported by the fact that only one social worker demanded
more guidelines for this process.
Even though the social workers cover a range of different areas and provided support in these,
most of the requirements for a sound pathway planning that Stein (2012) and Wade (2011)
formulated are not systematically met. The young people are not involved in decision making
processes. This is because they are not really perceived as capable of making sound decisions
in this process and the process is identified as mainly being guided by the helpers involved.
Their possibility to co-construct their own transition is limited to refusing to cooperate, which
though after the age of 18 would lead to the end of support schemes. This relates to Mauders’s
at al (1999) findings that a feeling of self-efficacy can provide support during the transition.
The feeling of not being able to decide over when to be ready to live independently might
have a negative impact on this. This point will be further analyzed in the chapter analysis of
the impact of the asylum process since this is the factor that most limits the young people’s
agency. The continuity of staff as Stein (2012) demands is in most cases given, even though
especially in the case of the project where the young people have to leave at 18 this was often
not possible due to lack of resources. As described in the methodology section the
respondents that work in projects where care is continuously provided up to 21 express their
opinion that this practice was exceptional. This indicates that even though in this study care is
often provided by the same carers up to age 21 this might not be representative for the general
practice. It will further be discussed regarding the care leaving age further down. There are
furthermore no trained carers especially for the transition as Stein (2012) demands. Even
32
though some social workers received some sort of training in the work with UASYP there
was no explicit focus on the specific challenges of the care leaving process that they were
confronted with.
The perception of the social workers in this study regarding the time of care leaving and their
definitions for being ready can also be interpreted through the concept of the life stage of
youth and its protraction (Furlong & Cartmel 1997). The young people in this study are semidependent on the youth care system due to their lack of family. The young people’s transition
to adulthood is even further prolonged regarding gaining financial independence and
education to work transition. The young people are often delayed in their educational
achievements and hindered in gaining financial independence due to lack of work permits,
education and access to paid work. Most of the young people the social workers report about
are about to finish their basic school education at the age of 21 instead of at 15 or 16 as it is
normally done. They are supposed to have finished most developmental tasks just as their
peers at 21 even though they didn’t have the chance to start working on these as early. Even
worse they are often disadvantaged by the YWOs which put pressure on them to leave care at
an earlier age than it would be expected from their citizen peers. This might jeopardize their
ability to develop a stable identity due to the complexity of the transition tasks and the
uncertainty of their future (Furlong & Cartmel 1997). The social workers refer to this by
pointing to the deadline of 21 as too early or at least not flexible enough. They express the
need to fully prepare them before this point because afterwards there would be no support
network available. Even though the respondents criticize the strict deadline of age 21 it seems
they have the possibility to provide rather long support. In contrast to Thomas’ & Sievers’
(2013) findings from Germany and also Stein’s (2006) results from the UK who found that
most young people leave care between the age of 17 and 18. In this study only one respondent
(SW 5) reports that in her project, due to internal agreements with the YWO, the care ends at
age 18. However she also describes how some of her young people have received ongoing
care by other institutions afterwards, if it was needed. At least 6 respondents point out how
their projects provided exceptionally long support in contrast to the general practice in
Hamburg, also social worker 3 as the YWO case managers reports this as being part of her
individual style. These findings are not only in contrast to these research studies but also to
statistic numbers. Of all care leavers only 40% leave care after the age of 18 (see ch. 4).
Thomas & Sievers (2013) also found that aftercare was in most cases only provided
voluntarily. In this study on the other hand the respondents try to facilitate after care by
having the young people leave before age 21 and find that the YWOs would in most cases
follow their recommendations and grant aftercare for some time. It is not fully clear if
Thomas & Sievers (2013) define aftercare as the care still provided while below age 21 or
after that age. In the present study most of the young people are placed in forms of ambulant
care from the beginning. Most respondents refer to ambulant care as care that is provided for
some time in the flats the young people move into after leaving residential owned housing or
youth groups.
Issues of development on the way to adulthood such as developing a stable identity were
touched upon very little. This complies with what Thomas & Sievers (2013) described in their
study. There social workers also focused mostly on practical skills in the care leaving process
and oriented their aims at a standardized life course and less at their individual needs and
developmental state. As definitions for being ready and being fully prepared, they mostly
refer to practical skills such as knowing German, understanding the system and obtaining a
school degree. Furthermore criteria such as being able to live independently and pursuing an
education or work are central to the understanding of being ready in Thomas’ & Sievers’
findings (2013). This is also found in this study. However, the level of maturity and
33
independence is mostly connected to daily life skills and ‘being ready’ connected to the
procurement of housing and finances. The extent to which social workers report about the
difficulties regarding the practical issues might indicate that there is little room in the
preparation process for considering other aspects. A few respondents though also refer to
internal psychosocial factors and are aware of the importance of self-confidence, feeling safe
and stability in the transition process as also Stauber & Walther 2006 emphasize. The
importance of this is seen by most of the respondents as social workers 4, 5 and 9 for example
explicitly refer to stabilizing as a main goal in the care leaving process. The respondents in
this study further stress the level of language knowledge and understanding of the German
system and culture as a requirement for being ready. This was not mentioned in previous
research, but appears to be an important theme in the care leaving process for UASYP
according to the respondents in this study and seems to need special attention. As some
respondents point out, some young people might be very capable in terms of practical skills
but in need of social work support, in their opinion due to the young people’s lack of
understanding of the new country they came to live in. This connects to the social workers’
perception of themselves as gatekeepers to the new society for the young people. They see
themselves as their advocates and facilitators for integration. This point will be taken up in the
analysis of the perception of the young people (Ch. 7.4).
The social workers put strong emphasis on the synchronization of the care laving process with
other transitions. As Stauber & Walther (2006) point out the transitioning from youth to
adulthood in Germany means a consistent yoyo-movement. The UASYP have very little
possibility for yoyo-movements since their dependence comes to a forced end at the age of
21. Even though they might have the possibility to receive unemployment money if they
haven’t managed to become financially independent at the age of 21 this doesn’t relieve much
from the pressure to constantly move forward instead of up and down. The logic of the
welfare systems that follow the youth care system are designed to keep people in it as shortly
as possible and achieve this through pressure and demands rather than through support (see
ch. 3). This connects to Stein’s (2005) findings that young care leavers miss the opportunity
to ‘space out’. The young people in the present study need to be fully capable and ready at the
moment of care leaving and lack the ability to fail and fall back into previous support
systems. The social workers show awareness for this by trying to deal with at least as many
practical issues before moving out. However the young people in this study are faced with an
abrupt transition into adulthood without the possibility to fall back as also most international
studies on care leavers in general point out (Barrie & Mendes 2011; Hancilova & Knauder
2011; Höjer & Sjöblom 2011; Stein 2006; Stein 2012; Wade et al 2005).
7.3 Findings and Analysis: Impact of External Structural Factors
The previous findings illustrate which factors determine the care leaving process. These are
mostly individual variable factors, since the social workers are able to choose to give weight
to them, such as synchronization with other transitions, being ready, age and participation.
Additionally the respondents describe external structural factors that limit their ability to
provide adequate support during the care leaving process. These external factors have,
additionally to the involved actors, significant influence on the care leaving process. They
limit the social workers’ and young people’s scope of action as well as the opportunities and
outcomes of the young people during and after the transition. The influence of these structural
factors will be analyzed through the knowledge of theories of transition to adulthood and
refugee youth, and then further compared to previous research findings.
34
7.3.1 Findings: External Structural Factors
7.3.1.1 The Residence Permit
The status of residency is characterized as the overall determining and dominating factor of
the care leaving process by the social workers. An unresolved or unregularized residency has
a big impact on the young peoples’ progress in all life aspects and on the work of the social
workers.
Impact on young person
The social workers identify the care leaving process as centered on the issue of the asylum
status. Since none of the young people that are cared for by the interviewed social workers
have received asylum status, they try to regularize their stay on other grounds. The social
workers describe this as the most crucial and determining factor. According to the
respondents most of their clients have managed to regularize their stay before the age of 21 in
a way that they have a permit lasting longer than 6 months. This is a necessary condition for
finding a flat or employment. Nevertheless the impact of the long and difficult journey to
arrive at this point is described extensively. Almost all respondents report about at least one
case where they were unable or struggled very hard to procure the needed residence permit.
These cases are described extensively by the social workers and due to that will also be given
attention in the presentation of the findings and the following analysis.
Social worker 5 illustrates in detail the consequences of the uncertainty about the young
people’s future in the country. She describes this as the example of one of her clients. He was
promised to receive a residency status and then experienced a setback. She describes the
young man as very calm, friendly and always showing respectful behavior. He went to the
migration agency with the expectation to finally receive a residence permit. There he was told
that it wasn’t possible to issue this unless he travelled to Berlin to have his identity confirmed
by the Afghan embassy. Having to endure the uncertainty of his future caused him to fully
change his behavior, throw glasses through the cafeteria and shout at people. With this
example the respondent illustrates the impact of this uncertainty on the wellbeing of the
UASYP.
“And he came home, threw the documents into the office, stood up in front of
me and said soo angrily, with tears, so really badly, so really madly too: I am
not gonna do anything here anymore, won’t go to school anymore, shit and
blablabla, until I have a German passport, I won’t do anything! Like that, you
know? And slammed the door and I thought: Oh my god this boy, really? That
was stronger than, you can’t imagine, but there I realized again, what it does to
them, how bad it is.” (SW 5: 572 - 580)
All respondents describe further effects of an un-regularized stay on the well-being of the
young people. They describe problems of sleeping, nightmares, headaches, having problems
concentrating, lack of motivation, depression, resignation, anxiety, paralysis and general
doubts about the meaning of their lives. The respondents all connect these symptoms to a
great extent to the uncertainty about their stay, because most of the symptoms often suddenly
disappear if they receive a positive residence decision.
“I have 3 with a secure status and one thing is clear: When they received it, it
was a relief, you could really see that. They suddenly sleep better, they have
less often headaches, they don’t have certain symptoms anymore.” (SW 5:
552-554)
35
Even if the residency question is resolved before age 21 they might experience negative
consequences. As social worker 1 points out, even if they receive a work permit at some
point, the period of uncertainty beforehand has already caused damage.
“They don’t sleep at night for example, because they have nightmares for
example and then they don’t go to school anymore and if they have 35 days of
absence in one semester, it is really hard to apply for a job with that.” (SW 1:
575-577)
Social worker 3 also refers to their mental health state. According to her almost all her clients
suffer from a PTSD, which she thinks is difficult to treat if they continuously have to fear
deportation and endure the uncertainty of their future. Social worker 4 describes the young
people as hindered in their development and paralyzed in planning their future as long as they
have this uncertain residence status. Apart from the psychological effects, they illustrate
practical consequences. The young people can hardly plan their future, rent a flat, find a work
and become full members in society. As social worker 8 explicitly expresses it, not having the
needed permit means leaving care into homelessness.
“He won’t get a work permit, no flat, if we, right now, if we paint it black,
after three years of youth care, he will be discharged into a homeless shelter
[Wohnunterkunft].” (SW 8: 110-112)
Social worker 2 further identifies a lack of ability to build a social network and close
relationships because of uncertainty about their stay. These conditions and problems also
influence the way the social workers ability to work with the young people to support their
transition.
“I think it’s because, that they, yes, have to fight clearly here. Because of this
whole burden. Does it all pay off that I work this hard or is it all in vain? Or
what, maybe not even rationally, more like: oh god, what if I have to go back?
Fear too.” (SW 2: 682-685).
Impact on social work
The status of the young people as asylum seekers also has a big impact on the social workers
and limits their possibilities of providing the best support during the transition process. They
describe the residency question as the overall dominating factor also for their work.
“That partly makes the care planning difficult. Because they can’t start a
vocational training.” (SW 3: 265-266)
In this situation the social workers describe how they find themselves in a difficult situation.
Without the residency they cannot pursue their tasks to prepare the young people for
independent living and secure housing and finances as it was described. The work with a
young person without resident permit is described as solely centered around procuring this
permit.
“You have basically two categories. That young person who has a long term
residence permit in Germany, that has it already on paper, so that he also has a
work permit so that you can do a completely different job, work into a
completely different direction. That is to say look for housing, job search,
assist the process of becoming independent - that perspective. And you have
36
the young person that has nothing of that, where it is really insecure, where the
probability of deportation is high, where you naturally, you cannot get around
it, that this also influences your own work. If you don’t have the prospect (...)
but you support them in school, give private tutoring, invest blablabla and then
he will never be allowed to do enter a vocational training, because he will
never get a work permit, because he probably has to go back at the age of 19, if
nothing, if not somehow a miracle happens, right? And that of course is a
different way of working.” (SW 5: 439-451)
They describe how in these cases they have no direct influence on the asylum system but
nevertheless try improving the residence status. They do this with the help of lawyers, NGOs
and by gathering information or trying to get psychological assessments to support the
lawyers’ work.
“Well, then the focus shifts to trying to get them a residence permit. Then we
don’t look for housing, it’s also not possible, they don’t get any, but we
concentrate on, that they are well integrated, that it’s going well at school, and
we try repeatedly with lawyers to see how to come forth in the asylum
process.” (SW 5: 476-477)
A further problem connected to this is how to stabilize the young people and keep up their
hopes. Social worker 8 reports that their main focus shifts to stabilization, so that the young
person doesn’t resort to criminality or drugs due to the insecurity the situation causes for him.
They describe different ways of making sense of this dilemma. Social worker 9 reports how
she herself feels insecure about what to tell the young persons in this moment.
“He always asked me: ******* [name], Why am I doing all this? Why am I
doing this if I still don’t know? And I always said: It will be alright, so. And
now I have to tell him: oh, no by the way it is not going to be alright.” (SW 9:
139-142)
She blames the system for not rewarding positive behavior. Nevertheless she sees the chance
in stabilizing them by providing a trustful environment and stable relationships.
“And if you are placed in care the way you are placed here, where the carers
tell you, yes ok, that is how the system is and it is explained and such, then
then you can keep up the motivation and then there are also opportunities.”
(SW 9: 195-198).
Social worker 2 agrees with this view and sees the importance in providing a trusting
relationship in order to stabilize the young people. He also points to the unclear goals of the
system of youth care and asylum in general as the problematic issue. He thinks that it is an
ambiguity that they as social workers are supposed to treat them as any other young persons
and address issues such as school, housing, future in the country while the system from the
other side gives the impression they do not want the young people to stay in the country.
“That is basically a contradiction in the intention of the contractee
[Auftraggeber]: do everything with them, that’s how I would phrase this, do
everything with them, so that for the time they are here they behave fairly well
and yes, behave well, go to school, don’t commit crimes, don’t make too high
demands and are happy for the time they can be here, but we assume that this
is not permanently, so that is the intention. And there I would wish for a
37
different clarity: We assume that this is permanent. If they really want it, the
young people.” (SW 2: 302-310)
Most interviewees find it hard to makes sense of these contradictions also for their work.
Social worker 7 seems more confident about a positive outcome in time.
“And I also tell them, you know? Use your time here, you are safe, you won’t
be deported and your application is already dismissed as obviously ungrounded
and then it can be that you have to go home quite soon, but probably only after
turning 18. Simply because the children are still minors according to the
refugee convention.” (SW 7: 449-453)
She has only seen one person deported in her career and therefore sees it as the social workers
task to convey this security to the young people.
“Because this is what they cling to you know [the asylum decision]? So I think
they see that as an orientation and if they receive a negative answer they fall
into a sort of limbo and think that everything is over. And there you have to get
them out of course and say no.” (SW 7: 384-387)
Social worker 7 sees the possibility to help the young people make sense of these
contradictions in the two systems. Even though she also sees strains in not being able to
influence the outcome of the asylum application or receiving a residence permit she thinks
they should focus on what they can influence. These are their school outcomes, learning the
language and making experiences they could not make at home. Even after this the possibility
of having to go back she sees as something the young people should look forward to
positively and the time spent in Germany as something they should make use of for whatever
future they are going to have. Social worker 2 also points to this even though he admits that
this future prospect does not appeal to the young people.
7.3.1.2 Finding a New Home
The housing situation in Hamburg has a major impact on the care leaving process. The
shortage of flats in Hamburg contributes additionally to the problems of finding a flat as an
asylum seeker significantly due to the risk of becoming homeless after leaving care.
Affordable housing is scarce and especially for young people leaving care it is very difficult
to be accepted as a tenant. All social workers mention this problem, some to a great extent
during the interviews. The interview with social worker 1 was almost exclusively concerned
with this topic. This though can be associated with the fact that she was herself writing a
paper about a similar topic, namely the problem of finding housing and therefore thought this
to be of great importance. The other respondents however also complain about how this
situation hinders them at working with the young people on other important aspects of the
care leaving preparation. The process of finding a flat is described as being so time
consuming that it partly dominates the pathway planning significantly. Some social workers
point to the additional disadvantage of the young people as foreigners and asylum seekers.
Not only would their insecure residency status discourage private and corporate landlords, but
also their “unpronounceable names” (SW 3) and the fact that most of them come from
Afghanistan, “the country of terrorists” (SW 4), makes their search for an apartment very
hard.
“My theory is that there are landlords that are prejudiced against letting an
Afghan into their houses.” (SW 3: 211-212.)
38
The intersection of many different characteristics of their life situation confronts them with a
significant level of discrimination. They are mostly receivers of some kind of welfare income,
have limited residence permits, often no work permit and belong to ethnic minorities. These
are all factors that label them as unattractive as tenants.
“They are partly only tolerated or only have residence permits for 6 months or
a year. Not every landlord lets himself in on this. This is why on the normal
housing market we can’t find flats for them. They are additionally often
receivers of social benefits, which puts off many landlords. And they
additionally have unpronounceable names and my theory is that there are also
landlords that they are prejudiced.” (SW 3: 205-212)
A great amount of effort and time therefore goes into trying to improve these factors to
procure housing. As described the overall deciding factor for that is a residence permit that is
valid for longer than 6 months. It also takes up a lot of resources of the social workers that
they would like to use to work on other aspects of the transition process.
“As I said before, concerning staff resources it is very, very difficult. If two or
three clients move out at the same time, or also prospectively will move out
soon, then you can’t manage. Because you also have two more of which you
are the key worker. It is just not possible. I can’t preoccupy myself 10 hours a
week hunting flats for them.” (SW 1:299-303)
As a reason to start the pathway planning one to two years before the actual care leaving they
gave the reason that it is so difficult to find housing. Only social worker one describes the
process as overall dominating. Nevertheless all other social workers mention the problem and
it seems to complicate the care leaving process for UASYP considerably. Social worker 2
even describes a situation where a UASYP left care into homelessness because of the lack of
housing.
“It wasn’t because he wasn’t independent, but because there was a lack of
housing. (laughs) There are no flats!” (SW 2: 462-464)
7.3.1.3 The Role of the Youth Welfare Office
The YWOs were described as a very influential actor in the care leaving process. The social
workers illustrated the way the YWO case managers used their margin of discretion. Some
social workers felt the YWO would strongly listen to their recommendations and the young
people’s wishes whereas other perceived their decisions to be unpredictable.
“It depends. It really depends on the case manager in charge of the YWO if
he/she regards it as reasonable or not. Bam! End of story. Sometimes they do
sometimes they don’t.” (SW 2: 374-376)
As described before the respondents experience the YWO as acting more and more
restrictively especially in granting ongoing care until the age of 21 and this is even stronger
concerning UASYP. According to social worker 7 this is due to increased financial
restrictions that the case managers would have to follow. The social worker responsible for
UASYP in the YWO on the other hand expresses that she feels free to exercise professional
discretion.
“You can do everything you just have to find good reasons to justify it.” (SW
3: 705-706)
39
She reports that by this she was able to keep young people longer in the system even beyond
the law by suing the right arguments. Other respondents also report the same kind of influence
on the YWOs from their side, whereas others again feel little to no possibility to influence
these decisions.
As also described before, one respondent points out how the law is misinterpreted concerning
the deadline of the stay in the youth care system. The other respondents do not mention this.
Social worker 2 also illustrates the difficulties of prolonging the stay even though it is based
in the law.
“It’s a thing where we just now with a lot of effort and energy, that why I say:
before you start fighting with the YWO you have consider it carefully, because
it really takes from you. How do we say in sports: It really takes grains from
you. [it takes energy from you] It is just wrong information, where the Social
Care Act is interpreted wrongly.” (SW 2: 440-444)
7.3.2 Analysis: External Structural Factors
The social workers extensively describe the impact of the inherent uncertainties in the asylum
system on their work and the wellbeing of the young people. It corresponds to Dixon et al’s
(2006) characterization of “working with uncertainties” (213). The social workers invest a lot
of professional energy in trying to influence the residence status of their clients. Through that
they intend to also resolve parts of the uncertainty of the young people’s future. In this study
the social workers describe how they reach their limits while trying to work on all different
issues at the same time. “And there we are clearly stretched to our limits. I have already
illustrated the whole range of what we do and then we even go into legal counseling with
them.” (SW 2: 534-536) While the social workers see their task to integrate the young people
into the society and enhance their skills the asylum system with its uncertainties counteracts
with this.
The social workers try to make sense of the inherent system contradictions in different ways,
which has different impacts on the young people. This can be interpreted with the
identification of the necessity of creating a feeling of being in control of their lives and being
and feeling safe for the young people (Adam & van Essen 2004; Barn 2011). Most of the
young people suffer from PTSD, as the respondents reported. These are identified by Adam &
van Essen (2004) as not only deriving from the traumatic events experienced in their past but
also from the present uncertainties they experience through the asylum and migration system.
The social workers describe the young people’s difficulties in concentrating, physical and
mental health problems, making sense of their future and partly to build stable relationships
and connect them to the uncertainty of their future stay in the country. They associate these
symptoms as well with the pending or negative asylum decisions based on their observations
that these fade away or even disappear in cases where young people receive longer lasting
residence permits.
Adam & van Essen (2004) also stress the need for a stable and secure environment to not
further endanger the young people’s identity development. Even though the social workers do
not explicitly mention the concept of identity development they stress the necessity for
creating stable environments and providing practical, social and emotional support. They
emphasize how the stability and trust through the relationships they provide can help keep up
the young people’s motivation for the future. This can be interpreted as intention of the social
workers for facilitating the successful development of identity even if the respondents did not
explicitly refer to this.
40
As central factor to facilitate a successful transition Adam & van Essen (2004) point to
working on regaining control. This is not focused on very much by the social workers in this
study. They mainly perceive the young people as unable to make sound decisions and
characterize them as feeling very helpless and exposed to other people in this system. Even
though they recognize the young refugees’ disadvantaged situation in society the respondents
do not report about strategies to change this. The young people’s inability to influence their
own lives can, according to Adam & van Essen (2004), hinder them at overcoming their
traumatization and develop independence and autonomy. This also finds expression in the
respondents’ reports. Even though they do not mention the factor of self-efficacy they
emphasize the negative outcomes of the inability to influence and plan their future. This can
hinder them in developing the needed self-esteem and stable identity and become independent
and autonomous as their life stage in the German society demands (Stauber & Walther 2006).
Wade et al (2005) found that a positive asylum decision can provide the young people with a
feeling of being able to plan their future. The respondents in this study express the same view
by stressing the dominating impact of the uncertainty of stay.
The respondents experience the asylum process as also dominating and limiting their agency
as professionals. They find it difficult to make sense of the contradictions at the intersection
of the youth care system with the asylum system. Only social worker 7 sees the possibility of
conveying to the young people the feeling of expecting a positive future despite the system.
Social worker 7’s long years of professional experience in the field might make a difference
here. She only once experienced one deportation of a UASYP in 20 years. Due to this she has
the ability to convey a feeling of security and stability to the young people and convince them
that despite the felt threat of deportation they are in a safe place now. The other social
workers mostly worked a few years in the field and cannot draw back on the same
experiences. Dealing with the problem the way social worker 7 describes it might take away
some of the pressure felt by the youth. This could enhance the feeling of a safe and secure
environment that Adam & van Essen (2004) describe as crucial for a successful identity
development. They furthermore stress the need for “trusted identification models” (524). A
social worker or even guardian as in the case of social worker 7 could take on this role even if
only for a limited amount of time. Here it would be interesting to research how the young
people experience the different attitudes and strategies of the social workers in terms of
feeling safe. The conviction of social worker 7 is based on the fact that the young people are
protected under the CRC while they are in youth care. Expecting the young people to accept
this as a positive future is questionable, as social worker 2 points out. Even though he follows
the same strategy as social worker 7 he concludes that the young people do not feel the same
way about it and find the prospect of not knowing what will happen after care as destabilizing
even if they are in a safe place during care.
Another important aspect of lacking the feeling of self-efficacy is the risk of internalizing and
individualizing disadvantages (Stauber & Walther 2006). The social workers describe how
they encourage the young people in any case to work as hard as possible at school and on
integrating into society even though in this they seem to be constantly rejected by the system.
It seems possible that the internalization of systemic disadvantages can be furthered through
this. If working hard and conforming behavior is linked to the prospect of a residence permit,
even though they clearly don’t relate, this can lead to a felt responsibility of the individual in
case of failure or negative outcome of the asylum decision. The alternative, as social worker 7
describes, of creating a feeling of self-efficacy and taking away the focus from the asylum
system might be one way of avoiding that. The time of uncertain status may be characterized
as a time where other areas of life and developmental tasks are on hold and social work and
the young people’s lives only circulate around resolving this issue.
41
Stein (2006) found that care leavers in general are at higher risk of homelessness and social
exclusion than their peers not placed in care. The social workers in this study describe how
this risk is even higher for UASYP due to their disadvantaging characteristics not only as care
leavers but also as receivers of state benefits, asylum seekers and also as migrants. It seems
that a practical factor such as finding housing shouldn’t be taking up so much space in the
pathway planning. Due to the difficult situation on the market in Hamburg it does and the
group of young people in question might be characterized as the least desirable tenants. This
is another factor that renders them helpless and exposed to structures they can’t influence. It
adds to the risk of internalizing these disadvantages that derive from their position in society
(Stauber & Walther 2006). Even though few social workers have seen a UASYP leave care
into homelessness they all emphasize the negative expectations they connected to this. As
long as the young people are in care they can rely on a support network. After terminating
care almost all of this disappears and they can’t further rely on family networks. As Barn
(2011) notes, this missing support leads to a lack of belonging, social exclusion and problems
in making sense of their ethnic identities. The extent to which the social workers describe
their efforts in this aspect shows their awareness for these risks. According to SW 2 it might
even lead to a stronger attention given to this group, as in his opinion more often citizen
young people leave care into homelessness. However this does not mean this group of people
does not face this option. Many respondents point out how their projects were special in this
way and how they have experienced other projects in which these issues were not given the
appropriate attention. Social worker 4 describes a project where almost all UASYP left care
into homelessness. The housing situation therefore significantly influences the outcome of the
young people’s status trajectory and takes up a big amount of time in the pathway planning.
This time is subtracted from the time that could be used to stabilize them psychologically and
accompany them more holistically in their transition. Feeling safe is identified as a major
factor in the transition process (Stein 2012) and the basic provision for that is to have a home
where one feels safe.
The respondents illustrate the limiting impact of the YWO. Its seemingly arbitrary decisions
and misapplication of legal provisions clearly further limit the social workers ability to
facilitate a successful transition. The chosen theories in this study unfortunately do not apply
to this specific issue. This theme appeared unexpectedly during the interviews and does not
apply to the aim of the study. It is nevertheless identified as an important part of the care
leaving process and will therefore be discussed in the conclusion (ch. 8).
7.4 Findings and Analysis: Perceptions of Young People
The perceptions of the young people influences the social workers regarding the kind of
support they give during the transition. It will therefore be presented how they perceive them
in terms of skills and resources and also how they see their access to social networks and
relationships. Based on the assumption that social capital can be an important support factor
in resolving identity issues during the transition to adulthood (Helve & Bynner 2007), the
concept of social capital will be of central interest for the analysis of these findings.
7.4.1 Findings: Perceptions of Young People
7.4.1.1 More Benevolent View on UASYP
Social worker 2 reflects on how UASYP might be getting more attention than citizen young
people leaving care. As mentioned before, the young people are in danger of homelessness.
Nevertheless social worker 2 points out how he has seen this happen only once. He has
experienced it more often that citizen young people left care into homelessness. He couldn’t
give an explanation for this but assumes that social workers might perceive UASYP as more
42
vulnerable than their citizen peers and therefore invest more energy into making sure they
find hosuing.
“I think that at least here with us, I can say little about other projects, but it
would be interesting to discuss this with other colleagues, well I believe here
with us the danger, that a minor or then an adult unaccompanied is exposed to
in this society, is considered higher than for normal, I mean „normal“ German
young people, because above them [UASYP] is also hanging the sword of
Damocles of the deportation, so I think that because of that they get another
kind of attention and another kind of support.“ (SW 2: 151-157)
Social worker 3 furthermore reflects upon if they are not only perceived as more vulnerable
but also more benevolent by social workers in terms of unwanted behavior.
“With some I think it would be a pity if they wouldn’t try hard enough and end
up in a homeless shelter. Our German youth, they usually have a family of
origin, where we could send them back to, where we could say, hey you know,
either you cooperate or you leave, we end care and you go back to your
mother. That you can’t do with them [UASYP]. There is no mother, there is no
father.” (SW 3: 905-911)
They see them as more goal oriented, more grateful for the support and, in a way, more
deserving because of their special situation.
“Well or rather the view on German youth changes. When I see what they
manage, despite their cross. The German youth don’t manage that at all.
Although there I also have some that then one day started studying. I ended
care and they went away for studying. So. It is a different view on them.
Sometimes it also plays a role; sometimes you really feel pity for them. That’s
unavoidable.” (SW 3: 925-935)
“For these young people it’s a balancing act, between cultures and countries
and laws. So much, in such a short time they have to learn so incredibly much
and know, because that is asked for. You cannot violate any rule so this is one
thing, one challenge for them. And here they need to receive full support; I
think that is the purpose of all this work with the young refugees, so they
deserve the help partly even more than others.” (SW 7: 893-900)
Social worker 2, 6 and 7 state that they do not see a big difference between the UASYP and
the German youth, but claim to regard them as any other young person with similar needs.
They acknowledge their different backgrounds and experiences but stress that the question of
resources and skills is dependent on the individual. Despite this they identify a higher level of
support needs due to disadvantages arising from their position in the system.
“Well basically like every other human being, I don’t differentiate there at all.
The particularity is of course that they don’t speak this language here and there
they need a very strong support through the systems here.” (SW 7: 777-779)
All respondents generally emphasize the individuality and impossibility of
generalization about the group of UASYP. Nevertheless they describe some specific
attributes which they associate with the young people’s status as unaccompanied
43
refugees. They perceive them as more vulnerable than their citizen peers. This became
apparent in the question of leaving care into homelessness.
7.4.1.2 Skills and Resources
In terms of behavior and individual resources they perceive them generally very positively
and show themselves to be impressed by their personal skills and achievements.
“Well they are, here are young people that are highly intelligent, it is
unbelievable. We have young people here, that have learnt the language in 6
months, later you find out, they have on their flight, wherever they were,
picked up the language, they speak several languages. Among them are top
athletes, great musicians, artistic persons you have a lot. There are many that
err are politically active, they are interested in that, they have a great sense for
justice or injustice and work towards, so you see all sorts of things. We have
young people here that we accompany until the A-levels [highest school
degree], but they don’t receive a residence permit, so you have something like
that, that I see a lot. Then you have many that have learned certain things
before, like they are tailors and know how to do great things, they are just not
allowed to.” (SW 4: 312-323)
This shows how the social workers mostly see the young people as very capable. They also
stress the young people’s ability to survive and value that they made it all to Germany as a
great achievement and sign for internal resources.
“Able to survive, I mean that they are survivors. Otherwise they wouldn’t be
here. I am very well aware that many that are on their way don’t get here. And
those that get here have seen a lot and experienced a lot, but always had the
strength to go on.” (SW 3: 504-507)
However they also emphasize how the skills and resources the young people have are
neglected by the system.
“What I see is that many of the resources they have are not used. By them and
in the system. I think that is a shame. Well, they all speak several languages. 34, all of them fluently eventually, if they learn German properly. They often
worked in the profession of their fathers in their home countries. That means as
barbers, tailors, shoemakers and car mechanics. They often have an education,
but it is, no one asks for it. No one is interested in that. It’s like that, that we
often only after a long time find out that you have someone there that is a
trained tailor, that can tailor everything perfectly for you and barber too at the
same time, you know? It takes up to half a year until our system finds that
out.” (SW 5: 667-676)
7.4.1.3 Social Networks and Relationships
At the end of the interviews the social workers were explicitly asked if they thought the young
people had access to social capital and/or were active agents of generating this. For this
purpose the concept of social capital was shortly introduced by the researcher as: “the capital
and resources someone holds through social connections, relationships and networks based on
reciprocity and trust”.
To this specific question social worker 2 answers that he perceived the young people as
generally unable to build stable and trusting relationships and therefore denied they had
access to social capital. The other social workers attest that access to social capital mostly
44
within their own ethnic groups, social worker 1 allocates this access mainly among their
peers.
“I think yes, definitely. Simply from their group of friends, this support and
solidarity that is just, and this knowledge, there are people, that accept me, the
way I am, even if I don’t find a job for example.” (SW 1: 670-673)
Social workers 3, 4, 5 and 6 localize their access to social capital as restricted to their ethnic
communities. Social worker 3 sees the access to societal goods through this kind of capital as
very restricted to daily life necessities. Social worker 5 identifies a tendency to build social
networks with people that speak the same native language. She appoints the role to the youth
care workers to build connections and facilitate the building of new networks outside their
own ethnic group to the majority population. Some of the young people have the desire to
build friendships with citizen young people and she describes the social worker’s effort to
facilitate this.
“We try to get them into football clubs etc. That is too tiring for the coaches, if
they don’t speak German. At school they are only surrounded by foreigners, in
the German language courses they are only together with foreigners, there are
great activities for refugees, but then it’s always only refugees. So, and normal
activities, getting them into normal leisure activity offers in Germany, without
money, that is difficult, because the money is not there and or only limited.
Now I am having two, I am curious to see, they are going to do a swimming
course in March, they can’t swim.” (SW 5: 734-742)
Social worker 4 also sees their access to social capital as limited to their own ethnic
communities. She sees a chance in voluntary guardians7, because these are usually persons
with a big network and access to social capital functioning as a bridge between the new
society and the young people.
“They [the voluntary guardians] are of course much better equipped with good
contacts. That is someone that grew up in this society, maybe even here in
Hamburg and correspondingly can organize things.” (SW 4: 469-472)
Social worker 7’s answer to the question of social capital assigns the responsibility to social
work to facilitate them with access to networks outside their ethnic groups and outside the
youth care system.
“You have to guide it, otherwise they don’t go, you have to follow it up and
accompany them, you have to inquire, you sometimes have to participate too,
so and then there is the chance that really good relationships develop […] that
is networks and relationships.” (SW 7: 847-850)
She, in line with social worker 5, sees the young people restricted in their ability to build
these networks themselves due to their status in society. Social worker 9 even sees the social
workers as the only stable and trusting relationships and identifies a lack of relationships and
networks in their lives generally, just as social worker 2. Social worker 8 sees strong bonds
only to persons with existing family ties. This differs significantly from the experiences of
7
Voluntary guardians are citizens that volunteer to take on the role of a guardian to a young person in care.
Young people in care can apply to receive a voluntary guardian, which then substitutes their professional legal
guardian.
45
social worker 6. She perceives the young people’s relationships to peers as strong and
valuable.
“One yes, one no, well the network of my two Afghans is in both cases very
good, very stable and very good. No matter with which of the two I go out on
the street, they always meet people, they are again very, I mean come on, I
have been in Hamburg for 43 years and don’t know as many people as they do.
They always meet someone, have a good network, the one that mmm, now
starts vocational training, always had many friends that helped him with
moving, carried furniture and that he spent his free time or a big part of his free
time with them, so he really is never alone and also has really cool friends
among those, that have both feet on the ground (…) So both of them do have
networks, also in their private life. Good, big networks.” (SW 6: 536-549)
Generally the social workers perception of the young people’s relationships and networks
differ. Most identify networks to peers especially with similar ethnic backgrounds. Social
worker 2 rates the relationships to peers differently than his colleagues do.
“(…) helped with moving, so it is more and that level. It is not like something
that we, err know from here, like long lasting friendships or something. That’s
what I mean with relationships, err entering stable relationships.” (SW 2: 675678)
He associates the reasons for this lack of reciprocal trusting relationships with their
preoccupation with their own traumatic experiences and previous loss of relationships, with
their difficulties in the country and the uncertainty of their future. The social workers
generally see the young people’s most important networks within their own ethnic community
and see this critically in terms of integration. They attest them a lack of contacts and access to
networks in the majority population. According to some respondents only these provide
access to societal goods.
“Well regarding integration I don’t think that it is very successful. And I think
that is even furthered by the schools. Most of them come into these classes for
immigrants (Auffangklassen). And there, where yes, there they are together
only with young persons with a migration background.” (SW 2: 584-588).
However the social workers also recognize the stability and safety these ethnic community
networks provide. They further identify them as compensating for the young people’s lack of
family and provide them with a feeling of home.
“That’s why I also find it important that they in their community, their family,
their relations, still find a piece of home.” (SW 5: 311-312)
Social worker 5 motivates the young people’s lack of access to networks outside their
communities with inherent characteristics that disadvantage them, as well as with society not
being prepared for facilitating easier access.
“And that is also because they of course are equipped with „access preventing
factors“. Culturally different, language wise, traumatized, in the middle of
puberty, and you can’t forget, they are also somehow still children. Rootless.
Well, not rootless, but missing roots, cut off. Those I think are all factors on
46
the part of the refugee that complicate access. And the society also is not
sensitized for that”. (SW 5: 840-849)
Despite recognizing positive aspects of the networks within their ethnic communities the
respondents emphasize the need to extend their networks beyond their own groups. Social
worker 5 illustrates this thought by suggesting the young people should rather be placed in
middle class families than in youth care.
“If the adolescents were accommodated in middle class families, then you
have, then you send them to join sport clubs, where one knows each other. And
that makes a difference, if they say, well I am the carer of this young person,
can he join? So, come on Dieter [as example for coach name], we are
neighbors and you coach the guys in soccer, can I send him to you?” (SW 5:
802-807
Social worker 5 here also mentions her concern about connecting the UASYP to other
activities within the youth care system. She is afraid that the German youth using these are
not appropriate partners for good relationships that facilitate the UASYP with access to
positive relationships. Social worker 9 describes this as well and illustrates how these young
people with citizenship are often more difficult in behavior.
“And additionally in youth care they only meet German youth that is also
traumatized and that are also, difficult and that’s why they often think, well
German young people are all somewhat nuts.” (SW 9: 575-578)
In contrast to the perception that social work has to provide networks for them, social workers
3 and 6 on the other hand identify a strong ability for networking in the refugee young people
they work with. Social worker 3 connects this to their past flight experiences, whereas social
worker 6 sees it more as an individual resource of some of her young clients.
“That means that in the past they had to use many of these networks to
survive.” (SW 3: 538-539)
The social workers mostly introduce contacts to their ethnic communities and to peers with
the same experiences as their main contacts. If the young people have family in Germany or
contact with their family of origin in their home countries the social workers identify these as
the most important and support providing relationships. Quite a few of the young people in
care according to the young people seem to have some kind of family contacts. Second to this,
the respondents see themselves as the main, close relationships for the young persons.
“Without sounding arrogant, us. Yes, it’s us. Together with the persons that
live here, with these young people, that also live here, we have very strong
friendships here, and those will also continue I think a good while after leaving
this house. Those are real friendships and if they feel bad, then they are there
for each other and speak a lot among each other, than they speak with us. They
have this choice, but otherwise for important things, they have only us if there
is contact to the family, then it is also, that this, one of ours has a very strong
bond to his sister, they talk 3-4 times a week on the phone right?” (SW 8: 496505)
47
“If it’s not there [family] then there are two, and those are, I realize that with
the refugees very, very extremely, those are the social workers.” (SW 5: 291295)
In contrast to these opinions, social worker 3 does not see these close ties within the youth
care system. She contrasts the other respondents by not closely working with these young
people on a daily life basis as a case manager in the YWO.
“Not to persons from the youth care system. They don’t develop a relationship
to them in this sense. That it is important and longlasting and so on. That
would also be very difficult (…) Because the end is eventually coming. And
these are usually also young people that experienced as a child and later as
adolescents massive disruptions in relationships. May it be because their
parents died during the flight, because they were sent away or because the
contact out of other good reasons, there are also some, that were abused in
their home countries and so, the contact was disrupted and I believe they
know: those are professionals, those are professional helpers and they have a
hard time, to accept this so strongly (the help).” (SW 3: 722-728)
Even though most social workers describe themselves as important relationship partners they
know very little about their lives after terminating care. Only in rare cases they describe how
the young people seek their advice even afterwards. Some perceive this breakup as a difficult
process also for themselves and show concern for the young people, whereas others do not
perceive care leaving as a discontinuation of the relationship.
“I see it with my colleague and myself, there are still former youth that still
come back. That honors of course very much and that means, ok, there is a
basis of trust, they feel safe and come if they have a problem, but I wouldn’t
say that it is always and everywhere like this. There are always certain places
[projects] where former cared for young people always come back.” (SW 4:
395-399)
Even though most social workers show the willingness to be there for them and give advice if
a young person should contact them after leaving care, they also stress how the initiative has
to come from the young person, while the social workers do not have the resources to follow
upon them in their work or spare time.
“For some it is a clear disruption, for others, they try then to keep it, but we,
we are not active. If we don’t get a mandate, then we are not actively trying to
stay in touch. I don’t know if that is also conveyed to the young people,
without saying it, because we can’t manage that, it is impossible.” (SW 2: 626630)
In terms of those acting as further important relationship partners the respondents mention the
therapists, lawyers and guardians. Interesting here is that these are the relationships in the
young people’s life that are doomed to end from the start due to their professional character.
For this reason social workers 4 and 5 point to the voluntary guardians as an important source
for a lasting and stable relationship. According to their experience these regular citizens
dedicate their free time to these young people, often beyond the necessary age of 18.
Another aspect of relationships concerns romantic relationships. Here also the social workers’
perceptions differ significantly. Social workers 5 and 2 do not see the young people willing or
48
capable of developing romantic relationships. They connect this to their psychological state
and/or cultural characteristics.
“I sometimes have the feeling that they are not that interested and I can
imagine that it’s because they have so many strains with themselves, that they
are not capable to commit to something like that. Or not at all, I don’t even
mean a serious love relationship, but I think this starting something and fool
around with girls or boy, that requires a certain degree of liberation and you
have to commit somehow and maybe they are unable to do that. I can imagine.
That their traumatization stands in the way.” (SW 5: 923-938)
Social worker 7 made contrasting observations. She describes how the young men often seem
to bond with German girls.
“Right up to marriage. So all all, sometimes not, but up to marriage and having
kids I have seen it all. Seen it all, up to adoption by the family.” (SW 7: 832833)
7.4.2 Analysis: Perceptions of Young People
The respondents describe a different attitude towards UASYP in contrast to their peers in
youth care with citizenship. These citizen young people are perceived more difficult in
behavior much in contrast to the unaccompanied refugees. It seems that they perceive the
work with the refugee youth as more pleasant and feel that their efforts are more appreciated.
Research findings from England also indicate that asylum seeking young people show less
troublesome behavior than their citizen peers (Dixon et al 2006), however there are not results
so far on differing attitudes towards these two groups. Dixon et al (2006) also note that
UASYP fare better in school and are more likely to continue higher education after leaving
care. Yet in this study there has not been information gathered on this. However the social
workers describe the UASYP as more goal oriented and in this aspect more successful in
contrast to their peers. The fact that they perceive them to be more pleasant in behavior and as
described also more vulnerable, apparently also leads them to provide stronger support, for
example, with finding housing, which social worker 2 pointed out (ch. 7.3.1) or as social
worker 6 described as even more deserving. The social workers opinions about why the
young people show less troublesome behavior and work harder in school differ. They partly
see this as rooted in cultural differences or assume that some of them had good upbringing
with strong and good ties to their parents in contrast to the German youth. As it furthermore
became apparent during the interviews, receiving the residence permit was crucial. The threat
of having to go home if they did not comply with the rules in the new country might be
carefully considered as an explanation for their system compliance. The statement by some
social workers that they expect them to resort to criminal behavior and drop out of school if
they lost all hope of receiving a residence permit could be interpreted as supporting this
interpretation. The different attitudes towards UASYP lead the social workers in this study to
at least partly provide higher levels of support during the transition.
In terms of skills and resources the respondents paint a positive picture of the young people.
They strongly emphasize how the sheer fact that they survived the long journey from their
home countries to Germany meant they had many survival skills and were extremely resilient.
They further point to skills and personal resources such as intelligence, speaking many
different languages and substantial knowledge in the professions of their fathers such as
tailoring, fixing cars and computers etc. Despite the respondents’ positive view on them in
terms of skills they doubt the recognition of these in the German society. They note that their
49
specific skills have little value in the German system and are not acknowledged or even rarely
noticed and therefore useless to the young people. Germany’s strong focus on employment
and its highly selective school system leads to the exclusion of a certain group of people. As
Stauber & Walther (2006) point out certificates are needed to gain access to the labor market.
Even though the young people bring many skills from their home countries, these might be
useless in the German system. This can negatively affect their sense of self-efficacy and selfconfidence and possibly lead to internalization of disadvantages that arise from their position
in society (Stauber & Walther 2006).
These skills the social workers refer to can be interpreted as human and/or cultural capital.
The skills the young people have as a form of human capital however are of little value in the
German society due to lacking certificates and different needs on the employment market.
The respondents partly also indicate a high level of cultural capital in the young people.
Cultural capital is a form of capital that is inherited or passed on by the family. According to
Bourdieu (1986) its disposition depends also on the time that a person can accumulate this
free from economic necessities. The social workers for example associated the young people’s
system conformity, their high aspirations in education and their goal orientation as deriving
from a good upbringing in their families. The effects of this good upbringing can be
interpreted as embodied cultural capital. However since most of them left their home
countries very early and often not out of free will, it can be assumed that their time at
disposition of accumulating cultural capital was rather short in comparison to young people
growing up in their families. In current western societies due to yoyo transition patterns and
strong demands by the employment system Stauber & Walther (2006) point out how cultural
capital might not be sufficient to make a successful transition to adulthood. This goes
especially for those young people that embody forms of cultural capital that are apparently of
little use in the new society they migrated into.
Stauber & Walther (2006) suggest that individualized networks of social capital are needed as
support during the transition. These should lift some of the weight of the individuals in case
of failure, since the structural reasons for these failures are currently strongly individualized.
The young people in this study can also be seen as being able to profit from social capital to
protect them from internalizing structural shortcoming arising from their situation in society
following Stauber’s & Walther’s idea (2006). As described above the social workers were
asked explicitly about their opinion about the young people’s access to social capital. The
social workers seemed to have never heard of this concept and seemed puzzled about the
question or how to answer it. Their answers might have therefore been influenced by the
strong theoretical character of the question and turned out differently if they were more
familiar with the concept. Since this question was asked at the end it is however possible to
compare their answers to their opinions they generally gave on their perception of the young
people’s networks and relationships.
Even though some social workers do not see the young people as being in possession of social
capital they all described more or less the same situation regarding their relationships and
networks. The social workers describe the young people as generally rich in bonding social
capital within their own ethnic communities and with other UASYP. Even though they
recognize its value in creating a sense of home and emotional support they see the need to
further build bridging networks especially to German youth. They here identify the need for
the young people to integrate into society in order to fully gain access to opportunities such as
work. The bonding kind of social capital is also in theory seen as less positive than the
bridging kind. As Helve (2007) emphasizes, it can lead to exclusion from wider social
networks during the transition and according to Reynolds (2011) lead to the development of
negative social capital. This view seems to represent most of the social workers perception.
50
The difference in their answers regarding the access to social capital could be due to different
values they assign to the networks and relationships of the young people. Some social
workers value this inwards directed social capital highly and assign their peer relations high
levels of support strengths, whereas others perceive them as less valuable and consistent. This
might be due to individual differences in the bonding social ties, but also due to different
opinions of social workers concerning these relationships. Some seem to associate a higher
symbolic value (capital) with networks to persons that are fully integrated into the German
society. They point to the value of voluntary guardians as bridging contacts into society as
well as to themselves. Only social worker 3 doubts that the social workers can represent
significant persons to them. However the respondents all showed the inclination to provide
the young people with advice and support even after the termination of care. Stauber &
Walther (2006) as well emphasize the professionals’ ability of providing ‘weak and strong
ties’, emotional encouragement, safety and comfort. At this point it is questioned if these ties
can be regarded as social capital since these relationships are not based on reciprocity and
mutual trust. The care leaving moment for these young people seems to be a major
disconnection of relationships that leaves them very much alone. A very close and
interconnected support network consisting of carers, case workers, lawyers, possibly
guardians and therapists breaks away without being substituted by a new network of support
but rather a system with a more demanding logic. So even though the social workers perceive
themselves as important people to the young people they cannot take on the role of long-term
relationship partners based on reciprocity and trust. The voluntary guardians on the other hand
might be able to provide a positive bridging tie, since they also, as described by social worker
4, stay in touch with the young people after they turn 18 years of age and form close personal
relationships with them. Interesting here is that in contrast to Höjer’s and Sjöblom’s (2011)
findings the respondents in this study showed no fear that the young people might stay
dependent on them. They rather perceived the close connection to the young people
positively.
As mentioned, some of the interviewed social workers interestingly seem to disagree with the
opinion that the young people were lacking access to valuable social capital. They describe
the networks of the young people as very successful and resourceful. This might be
interpreted with Tolonen’s (2007) ideas that those with power in society can make use of their
social networks more effectively. This might represent the view of the respondents that
diagnose the young people a lack of social capital. The networks of the young refugees might
nevertheless be of use to them concerning feeling safe and being recognized. Here the limits
of the concept of social capital become apparent. Its tendency in reducing the value of
relationships to their ability to grant access to higher positions in society is criticized here. In
this definition it would only be applicable to privileged young people already having access to
symbolically powerful networks. Instead here the view is taken on that the young people
generate social capital actively also in their peer relationships. Even though these might not
facilitate access to higher positions in society it still has its benefits. It has been pointed out
how trust, reciprocity, feeling of belonging and safety, comfort and encouragement are
important factors for a successful transition. These can be generated and found in less
symbolic, powerful relationships. The young people’s networking efforts might for example
provide a great source of social and cultural capital for future generations or also for
themselves. Some social workers indirectly take on this point in highly valuing their existent
networks whereas others put stronger emphasis on the disadvantages arising from their
position in society.
The respondents that ascribe the young people a lack of access to social capital give weight to
facilitating bridging social networks to young people outside youth care and outside their
51
minority communities. This complies with Wade’s (2011) demand to facilitate the formation
of new attachments during the transition. The social workers try to connect the young people
to community networks. Here they seem to agree with Barn’s (2011) findings that trust and
reciprocity derive from community networks. This integration and connection to the majority
population is described as very complicated by the interviewees. The reasons for this are not
only seen in the young people’s psychological difficulties and effects of the asylum system
that result in health problems. Another reason is located in the way they are placed in care, in
the way education is provided to them and in society. This connects to Stauber’s & Walther’s
(2006) claim that bridging social capital should be facilitated on a policy level. Especially in
the case of UASYP it seems important. The respondents describe their struggle in facilitating
this on an individual level. The provision on a policy level could support this struggle and
make it easier for the young people to build the more valued bridging form of social capital.
8. Conclusion
The aim of this study was to explore the care leaving process from the perspectives of the
social workers. The findings suggest that UASYP are at risk of making an unsuccessful
transition. This can partly be associated to a lack of guidelines. This leaves the structuring of
the care leaving process up to the individual social worker and can endanger the provision of
adequate support during the transition. In addition to having to cope with the tasks of leaving
care and completing the transitions expected of them in their life stage, the young people face
strong difficulties due to being asylum seekers. The fact that because of this their future is
uncertain means that they can hardly find the stability to cope with their traumatic experiences
and develop a stable identity. The risk of becoming homeless also seems higher than for
young people with citizenship. However the support given to the unaccompanied refugees by
the social workers in this study also seems higher than for citizen youth. Therefore, at least in
this study, it is described how more often citizen young people ended up in homelessness.
Even though the support networks of the UASYP before moving out are quite extensive,
including lawyers and therapists, this network breaks away the day care ends. Their private
networks, despite also being rather extensive in most cases, were described as capable of
providing emotional support and a sense of belonging, but not to facilitate access to societal
goods. The social workers mostly ascribe them social capital within their ethnic communities,
which according to most of them has little symbolic value in the German society. Two
respondents pointed to voluntary guardians as possible supporting relationships in and even
after the transition. One respondent reflected on the fact to make this possible especially for
more unaccompanied young people because the voluntary guardians seem very motivated in
providing support even after the young people turned 18 years of age.
The chosen participants limited the variety of in depth reports. The number of represented
organizations was rather small in relation to the number of participants and during the
interviews it became clear that the chosen ones might represent those that provide better care
than other projects that are active in Hamburg. The small number of different organizations
resulted from the recruitment difficulties as described in the methodology chapter.
Nevertheless the external limiting factors the respondents described always limit the process
in the same way independent from the organizational structure. The efforts of the individual
social workers though depend on organizational conditions such as the number of staff and
their training. After listening to the respondents’ description of other projects it appears that
there are less effective projects in facilitating a successful transition. It would have been
interesting to also include some of those into this study. As some respondents suggested, the
positive features of the organizations represented in this study were the reason for not having
many cases of young people leaving care into homelessness. This was despite the fact that a
52
short residence permit makes it almost impossible to procure housing. It indicates that the
individual social workers are very important in the process of care leaving and that the
interviewed professionals might do an on exceptionally good job. To investigate this point
further a more representative survey on the living situation of the young people after care
could be appropriate. Further research that explores the effects of sound pathway planning
could assist social work and social policy in providing the social workers with guidelines for
assisting the young people in their transition. Here it should always be considered that these
guidelines should not be too narrow to not risk individually appropriate support schemes.
The findings are furthermore limited to the special context in Hamburg as the interviews took
place there. As one of 16 federal states some of the practice varies in comparison to other
states. As described the housing situation in Hamburg is very difficult and therefore an
important limiting factor to the care leaving process identified in this study. This situation
might be easier in other cities and regions in Germany. However, even here the UASYP are
especially disadvantaged. Due to their multiple disadvantaging statuses as for example care
leavers, asylum seekers, welfare recipients and foreigners they are especially undesirable
tenants and have a harder time finding housing in comparison to other groups in society.
Another particularity in Hamburg is a special regulation that allows people from Afghanistan
to stay in Hamburg and receive a residence permit if they show a certain degree of integration.
This is, according to the respondents, the reason why the number of people from Afghanistan
in Hamburg is especially high. It also means that this group of refugees is at very low risk of
being deported. The respondents described mostly situations of young people from
Afghanistan. It might therefore be assumed that the group of young people in this study is in
an advantaged position in the asylum system. The situation of young people from other
countries and especially of those that do not make it into the youth care system might
therefore be even more precarious. It would be worth looking at this in further research.
Additionally, the perspectives on unaccompanied asylum seeking girls are not included in this
study. They might have different needs and difficulties than their male counterparts meaning
it should also be looked into in further research.
Generally the interviews showed that the special situation of unaccompanied asylum seeking
young people is not adequately taken into consideration in the German system. The youth
care system is based on the assumption that the family is the primary place of support and
care. The state only interferes if the family fails and its interventions have the main goal to
restore the functionality of the family and the parents’ ability to raise their children
appropriately. In the authors opinion this is where the system fails the UASYP. The same
conditions that apply to young people with a family in the background is applied to them as
well. There is no special consideration to the fact that they come alone to a new country and
might need more or a different kind of support than their citizen peers. This connects to the
intention of the care. The respondents were insecure about the aim of care for this group.
They felt that it was only provided because there is a legal obligation, but that the aim is not
actually to integrate them into society. The aim of the German system seems to be to send
these young people back to their home countries as soon as the conflicts there are resolved.
This becomes apparent in the difficulties of receiving a longer residence permit and the permit
to work and pursue an education. As the social workers have pointed out, the young people
possess a variety of resources that are completely ignored and neglected by the system. They
do not only have practical skills, they also have intercultural experiences and speak several
languages. Interestingly, these are skills that are required by the employment system
especially of highly educated young people, whereas it does not seem to be of value in the
case of refugees. There are no provisions to officially recognize their resources and skills and
allow them to contribute to and fully participate in society. This is incomprehensible based on
53
the demographic development in the host society and the foreseen lack of skilled labor. A
reasonable strategy to the society’s problems and action based on the recognition of every
human’s dignity and value, would be to welcome these young people with open arms and the
attitude that society needs them. These issues could, on a practical level, be addressed by
systematically assessing and transforming their skills into certificates that are useful in
Germany to enter the labor market and providing them with long term residence permits if
they wish to stay in Germany.
In the writer’s opinion one important finding of this study that needs further discussion and
investigation is the briefly described misinterpretation or misapplication of the law. The social
workers did not only refer to current practice when mentioning the deadline of age 21 but also
to the law as the reason for this limit. Further they all wished for more flexibility of the
system in terms of the moving out time. The misinterpreted legal provision (§ 41) would
provide this possibility. The paragraph states that a young adult should receive the support
and care that he needs for a healthy development of personality. It further states that even
though this help shall normally be granted up to the age of 21, it can be prolonged beyond that
in reasonable individual cases for a limited period of time. In annotations on the law this
limited time frame stretches up to 27 years of age. The social workers on the residential level
were mostly not aware of this. The social worker from the YWO confirmed that the practice
in Hamburg happens according to a wrong interpretation of the law due to inner agency
guidelines. One respondent reported that they were able to prolong care according to this
paragraph but also emphasized how difficult and energy consuming this process was. It seems
that a broader knowledge of this could avoid situations in which young people have to leave
care into homelessness based on this provision. This would need further assessment of the
applicability of it and also of the reasons why it is not used in the present practice. In case this
legal provision turns out to be a viable provision for the described problems of inflexibility it
should be considered how it is possible to spread this knowledge among social workers in the
field. It is conceivable that the YWOs would refuse to grant care according to this but in case
social workers saw the necessity and needs they could in a joint effort take a couple of cases
to court in order to achieve a change in the practice.
Some themes that appeared in this study, such as the prioritization of refugee youth to citizen
young people, the question of integration of the young refugees into the German society and
the role of the YWOs, were not possible to analyze with the chosen theories and therefore
were only briefly mentioned and or discussed in this chapter. The theoretical perspective of
social capital used in this paper, however, assisted in analyzing the young people’s networks
and access to trusted relationships. It was found that even though they might have extensive
contacts within their ethnic communities most social workers in the study saw the necessity to
extent these contacts beyond these communities. The concept of social capital has its
limitations which become most apparent when analyzing disadvantaged groups in society
(Tolonen 2007). These limitations also appeared in this thesis, since most social workers
assigned the young people little access to social capital based on their disadvantaged position
in the German society. Some respondents though pointed out how these networks of the
young people provide them with important resources providing a feeling of belonging and
safety. Here the concept of social capital reaches its limit unless it is redefined and trusted
relationship are given value even if they do not facilitate access to mainstream societal goods
and prestige. Young people from ethnic minorities should also be regarded as active creators
of social capital. In this study their efforts of networking within their communities are
therefore chosen to be regarded as valuable and capable of providing them with valuable
resources that can help them in building a life in the new society.
54
In order to further promote the perspective of UASYP as active agents it seems necessary to
research the young people’s experiences of the care leaving process from their point of view.
All findings in this study are limited to the social workers perspective. These provide useful
insight into structural problems and allow locating the young people’s disadvantaged position
in this. However they cannot fully describe and provide in-depth insight into the young
people’s actual experience. Adding their perspective to this study would further assist to in
identifying issue in the process that need to be addressed by social policy and social work.
In this study the respondents pointed to several risks for the unaccompanied refugees
concerning their life after leaving care. This was especially connected to their lack of family
support and networks but also to their status as asylum seekers with an uncertain future in
Germany. They are protected under the UN-CRC and the German Social Care Act on Youth
until they leave the care system. It seems necessary to conduct research on their aftercare lives
to further assess their needs for support during the transition. Their high risk of social
exclusion, marginalization and mental health problems, due to the uncertainty of their future
has to be taken more seriously by social policy and research.
55
Reference List
Adam, H. & van Essen, J. 2004. In-Between: Adolescent Refugees in Exile. In Wilson, J.P.,
Drozdek, B., eds. Broken Spirits. The treatment of traumatized asylum seekers, refugees and
torture victims. New York: Brunner-Routledge, p. 521-546.
Barn, R. 2011. Care leavers and social capital: understanding and negotiating racial and ethnic
identity. In Reynolds, T, ed. Young people, social capital and ethnic identity. London:
Routledge, p. 84- 102.
Barrie, L. & Mendes, P. 2011. The experiences of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in
and leaving the out-of-home care system in the UK and Australia: A critical review of the
literature. International Social Work 2011 (54): 485 [online] Available at:
http://isw.sagepub.com/content/54/4/485 [accessed 02.02.2013]
Bieback-Diel, L., Lauer, H. & Schlegel-Brocke, R. 1987. Heimerziehung – und was dann? Zur
Problematik heimentlassener junger Erwachsener. (“Residential care – and what comes next?
About the set of problems of young adults that left care”). 2. überarbeitete. Aufl. – Frankfurt
a. M.
Bourdieu, P. 1986. The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson, ed.: Handbook of Theory and
Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, p. 241-258.
Buchmann, M.C. & Kriesi, I. 2011. Transition to Adulthood in Europe. In Annu. Rev. Sociol.
2011. (37): p. 481–503. [online]. Available at:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-soc-081309-150212 [accessed:
06.02.2013]
Bürger, U. 1990. Heimerziehung und soziale Teilhabechancen. Eine empirische
Untersuchung zum Erfolg öffentlicher Erziehung. (“Residential care and opportunities of
social participation. An empirical study about the success of public education/upbringing”) –
Pfaffenweiler.
Bundesfachverband UMF e.V. & UNHCR 2010: Evaluierung der Situation von unbegleiteten
minderjährigen Flüchtlingen in Hamburg Durchgeführt vom 20. - 22. Oktober 2010.
(“Evaluation of the situation of unaccompanied minor refugees in Hamburg. Conducted from
20.-22. Octobre 2010.
Bundesfachverband UMF 2011. Hamburg [online] Available at: http://bumf.de/index.php?/bundeslaender/hamburg.html [accessed: 28.03.2013]
Bundesfachverband UMF e.V. 2012: Im Jahr 2011 erreichten über 3.700 UMF das
Bundesgebiet. Eine Auswertung des bundesweiten Zugangs von unbegleiteten minderjährigen
Flüchtlingen. („In 2011 3700 UMR reached the federal territory. An evaluation of the entry of
UMR nationwide.”) [online] Available at: http://www.b-umf.de/images/inobhutnahmen-2011b-umf.pdf [accessed: 27.03.2013]
Bundesfachverband UMF e.V. 2013. Clearing. [online] Available at: http://www.bumf.de/index.php?/Themen/clearing.html [accessed 28.03.2013]
Bundesverband UMF e.V. 2013a. Supplementary Report on the third and fourth periodic
reports of Germany to the United Nations pursant to Art. 44 of the UN Convention of the
Rights of the Child. Berlin. [online] Available at: http://b-umf.de/images/parallelberichtbumf-englisch.2013.pdf [accessed: 26.04.2013]
Cashmore, J. A. & Paxman, M. 2006. Predicting after-care outcomes: The importance of
“felt” security. Child and Family Social Work, 11 (3), p.232–241.
Dixon, J. et al 2006. Young people leaving care: A study of costs and outcomes. Final Report
to the Department for Education and Skills. York: SPRU, University of York.
Edwards, R., Franklin, J. & Holland, J. 2003: Families and Social Capital: exploring the
issues, Families and Social Capital. ESCR Research Group Working Paper Series, no. 14,
London: South Bank University.
Finkel, M. 2004. Selbständigkeit und etwas Glück: Einflüsse öffentlicher Erziehung auf die
biographischen Perspektiven junger Frauen. („Self-reliance and a bit of luck: Influences of
public residential care on the biographic perspectives of young women") – Weinheim.
Furlong, A. & Cartmel, F. 1997: Young People and Social Change. Individualization and risk
in late modernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hancilova, B. & Knauder, B. 2011. Unaccompanied Minor Asylum-seekers: Overview of
Protection, Assistance and Promising Practices [online]. International Organization for
Migration. http://www.lowan.nl/documenten_vo/AMA_onderzoek_EU_2012.pdf
Helve, H. 2007. Social capital and minority identity. In Helve, H.& Bynner, J., eds. Youth
and Social Capital. London: Tufnell Press, p. 103-106.
Helve, H. & Bynner, J. ed., 2007: Youth and Social Capital. London: Tufnell Press
Höjer, I. & Sjöblom, Y. 2010. Young people leaving care in Sweden. Child and Family Social
Work 2010 (15) pp. 118–127.
Höjer, I. & Sjöblom, Y. 2011: Procedures when young people leave care — Views of 111
Swedish social services managers. Children and Youth Services Review 2011 (33), p. 2452–
2460.
Köngeter, S., Schröer, W. & Zeller, M. 2012. Transitioning Statuspassage „Leaving Care“:
Biografische Herausforderungen nach der Heimerziehung. (“Transitioning trajectory
“Leaving Care”: biographic challenges after residential care”) Diskurs Kindheits- und
Jugendforschung Heft 2012 (3), p. 261-276.
Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Maunders, D. et al. 1999. Young people leaving care and protection. Hobart: National Youth
Affairs Research Scheme.
Mendes, P. & Moslehuddin, B. 2006. From dependence to interdependence: Towards better
outcomes for young people leaving state care. Child Abuse Review 2006 (15), p.110–126.
Normann, E. 2003. Erziehungshilfen in biografischen Reflexionen: Heimkinder erinnern sich.
(„Upbringing support schemes in biographical reflections: Children brought up in care look
back“) – Weinheim
1
Osborn, A. & Bromfield, L. 2007. Young people leaving care. National child care protection
clearinghouse, Research Brief: Nr. 7. Australian Institute of Family Studies. [online]
Available at: http://www.aifs.org.au/nch/pubs/brief/rb7/rb7.pdf [accessed: 26.04.2013]
Padgett, D. K. 1998. Qualitative methods in social work research. Challenges and rewards.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Padgett, D.K. 2004. Spreading the word: writing up and disseminating qualitative research. In
Padgett, D.K., ed. The qualitative research experience. New York: Wadsworth, pp.285-296
Pongratz, L. & Hübner, H.-O. 1959. Lebensbewährung nach öffentlicher Erziehung: eine
Hamburger Untersuchung über das Schicksal aus der Fürsorge-Erziehung und der
Freiwilligen Erziehungshilfe entlassener Jugendlicher. („Life on probation after residential
care: a study in Hamburg about the fate of care leavers”) – Darmstadt [u.a.].
Pro Asyl 2013. Zahlen und Fakten. („Numbers and facts“) [online] Available at:
http://www.proasyl.de/de/themen/zahlen-und-fakten/) [accessed: 27.03.2013]
Reynolds, T. 2011. Editorial introduction. In Reynolds, T., ed. Young people, social capital
and ethnic identity. London: Routledge, pp.1-12.
Salmela-Aro, K. 2007. Adolescents’ and young adults’ goal-related social ties. In Helve, H. &
Bynner, J., ed. Youth and Social Capital. London: Tufnell Press, p. 127-136.
Schreier, M. (2012): Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage.
Smith, T. & Brownlees, L. 2011. Age assessment practices: a literature review and annotated
bibliography. United Nations Children’s Fund: New York. [online] Available at:
http://www.unicef.org/protection/Age_Assessment_Practices_2010.pdf [accessed:
10.05.2013]
Stauber, B. & Walther, A. 2006. De-standardized pathways to adulthood: European
perspectives on informal learning and informal networks. In: Revista de sociologìa. 2006
(79), pp. 241-262.
Stein, M. 2005. Young people aging out of care: The poverty of theory. Children and Youth
Services Review 2006 (28), pp. 422– 434.
Stein, M. 2006. Research Review: Young people leaving care. Child and Family Social Work
2006 (11), pp 273–279. [online] Available at:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00439.x/pdf
[accessed 07.02.2013]
Stein, M. 2012. Young people leaving care: Supporting Pathways to adulthood. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Strahl, B., Mangold, K. & Ehlke, C. 2012. Careleavers - aus stationären Hilfen zur Erziehung
in die Selbstständigkeit. Herausforderungen an Praxis und Forschung. („ Care leavers – from
residential care into independence. Challenges to practice and research“) Sozial extra, 36
(7/8), pp. 41-45.
Strahl, B. & Thomas, S. 2013. Care Leavers. Aus stationären Erziehungshilfen in die
"Selbstständigkeit". Unsere Jugend, 65. Jg.(1), 2-11.
2
Thomas, S. & Sievers, B. 2013. Nach der stationären Erziehungshilfe Care Leaver in
Deutschland. Internationales Monitoring und Entwicklung von Modellen guter Praxis zur
sozialen Unterstützung für Care Leaver beim Übergang ins Erwachsenenalter
Zwischenbericht für die Stiftung Jugendmarke. („After residential care: Care leavers in
Germany. International monitoring and the development of models of best practice for the
social support of care lavers in the transition to adulthood. Preliminary report for the
“Stiftung” (foundation) Jugendmarke”.) Berichtszeitraum (period under report): 01.01. –
31.12.2012. Unpublished preliminary research paper [online] Available at: http://www.unihildesheim.de/media/fb1/sozialpaedagogik/Forschung/care_leaver/Projekt_Care_Leaver_Zwi
schenbericht_zum_01.01.2013.pdf [accessed: 06.02.2013]
Tolonen, T. 2007. Social and cultural capital meets youth research: a critical approach. In
Helve, H. & Bynner, J., eds. Youth and Social Capital. London: Tufnell Press, pp.29-42.
United Nations. Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2007. World Youth Report 2007.
Young People’s Transition to Adulthood: Progress and Challenges. New York: UN.
Wade, J., Mitchell, F. & Baylis, G. 2005. Unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The
response of social services. London: British Association for Adoption
Wade, J. 2011. Preparation and transition planning for unaccompanied asylum-seeking and
refugee young people: A review of evidence in England. Children and Youth Services Review
2011 (33), pp.2424–2430. [online] Available at:
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/science/article/pii/S019074091100329X
[accessed 07.02.2013]
Waldrop, D. 2004. Ethical issues in qualitative research with high-risk populations: Handle
with care. In Padgett, D.K., ed. The qualitative research experience. New York: Wadsworth,
pp. 236-249.
Weller, S. 2011. Young people’s social capital: complex identities, dynamic networks. In
Reynolds, T., ed. Young people, social capital and ethnic identity. London: Routledge, pp.
124-140.
3
Appendix 1
Interview Guide German
Einführung:
Ich bin an dem Verselbständigungsprozess von unbegleiteten minderjährigen Flüchtlingen ins
Erwachsenenleben interessiert und daran wie dieser durch den Auszug aus der Jugendhilfe
strukturiert und gestaltet wird. Dabei interessieren mich Ihre Rolle als Sozialarbeiter in
diesem Prozess und Ihre Wahrnehmung der Jugendlichen.
Questionnaire Professionals
Vorbereitung/Auszugsplanung
Erzählen Sie mir bitte so
ausführlich wie möglich wie die
Vorbereitung des Auszugs und der
Auszug selbst organisiert und
strukturiert ist. Fangen Sie dabei
gerne mit dem Moment an in dem
beschlossen wird, dass der
Jugendliche
ausziehen
muss.
Welche Gründe gibt es dafür und
wie geht es dann weiter?
Gibt
es
spezifische
Arbeitsabläufe?
interne Was
meinen
damit?
genau
Sie
Gesetzliche Bestimmungen?
Wann wird die Planung begonnen?
Können
das
genauer erklären?
Wie sind die Jugendlichen in Fällt Ihnen noch
Entscheidungsprozesse
mehr dazu ein?
eingebunden?
Worauf/Wofür
werden
Jugendlichen vorbereitet?
die
Wenn Sie frei entscheiden könnten, Wann wäre der “Richtige” Moment
wie würden Sie diesen Prozess des Auszugs?
gestalten?
Welche Ressourcen bräuchten Sie?
Wieso können Sie das im Moment
so nicht leisten?
Nun bin ich am Leben der Wird der Kontakt zur Jugendhilfe
Jugendlichen nach dem Auszug bestehen bleiben?
interessiert. Gibt es eine Art
Nachsorge und wie sieht diese aus, Gibt es genaue Vorschriften dafür?
von wem wird diese geleistet und
woran
orientiert
sich
ihre
Ausgestaltung und Umfang?
Schnittstelle zum Asylprozess
Wie beeinflusst der Asylprozess Wie
beeinflusst
der Können Sie das
die
Auszugsplanung
und Aufenthaltsstatus den Übergang?
genauer erklären?
Vorbereitung
aufs
4
Erwachsenenleben?
Wahrnehmung
der
Jugendlichen?
Wie nehmen Sie die Jugendlichen
bezüglich Ihrer Chancen und
Möglichkeiten aber auch bezüglich
Ihrer
Benachteiligungen
und
Schwierigkeiten wahr? Welche
Ressourcen, Fähigkeiten oder
Defizite sehen Sie?
Wie sehen die Zukunftschancen der Was
Jugendlichen in Deutschland?
meinen
damit?
genau
Sie
Sehen Sie sie als unabhängig?
Sind sie bereit den Übergang zu
machen?
Sind sie gut ausgerüstet?
Welche Chancen haben sie?
Wie ist ihr soziales Netzwerk?
Mit welchen Schwierigkeiten sind
sie konfrontiert?
Wer sind ihrer Meinung nach die Gibt
es
Kontakt
zur
wichtigsten Personen im Lebend er Herkunftsfamilie?
Jugendlichen? Zu wem haben sie
die stabilsten und dauerhaftesten Wie sieht es mit Freunden aus?
Beziehungen?
Wie würden Sie Ihre persönliche
Beziehung bewerten?
Haben die Jugendlichen Zugang zu
Sozialem Kapital und wenn in
welcher Form?8
Kooperation
Gibt es andere Systeme oder
Partner mit denen Sie im Übergang
kooperieren?
8
Social Capital: Kapital und Ressourcen dass jemand hat durch soziale Verbindungen, Beziehungen und
Netzwerke, die auf Gegenseitigkeit und Vertrauen beruhen
5
Appendix 2
Interview Guide English
Questionnaire Professionals
Preparation/Pathway
Planning
Can you describe to me in as Work Place regulations?
much detail as possible how
the preparation process is Legal Provisions?
organized, structured and what
exactly
is
practically When does it start?
happening?
Participation/Involvement
of YP?
Preparation
future?
for
Can you explain that further?
What exactly do you mean
by that?
Can you say more about
that?
what
What is the right time for a
YP to move out?
If you could freely choose, Who
should
be
what kind of support would responsible?
you give during and after this
process?
(Why can that not be given
right now?)
What resources would be
needed?
Can you describe to me if and Will there be contact to the
what kind of aftercare there old residential home?
will be for the YP?
What is policy based, what
voluntary?
Intersection asylum process
Can you tell me everything
you can think of about how the
asylum
seeking
process
influences
the
pathway
planning and transition?
How does the asylum status Can explain that further?
influence the transition of
the YP?
What exactly do you mean
by that?
How does the future look
like in terms of staying in Can you say more about
the country?
that?
Perception of Young People
How do you personally Are they independent?
perceive the young persons
6
that
are
moving
out, Are they ready?
concerning their chances,
capabilities,
obstacles, Are they well-equipped?
independences,
skills,
resources etc.?
What chances do they
have?
How is
network?
their
social
What are the obstacles they
face?
Who do you think are the most
significant persons in the
young people’s lives? To who
or with who do they have
stable
and
persisting
relationships?
Do young think that the young
people have access to social
capital and if, in what way? 9
Cooperation
Are there any systems/partners
you cooperate with during the
transition?
Is there contact to the
family of origin?
How important are you to
the YP?
How
good
cooperation`?
9
is
the
Social Capital: Assets and resources someone has through networks of social ties and relationships, based on
reciprocity and mutual trust
7
Appendix 3
Quotes used from interviews in German and English translation
„Also der Übergang von Jugendhilfe zu Wohnraum ist nicht per se gestaltet, sondern der
muss irgendwie Int.: der muss SW 9: der muss gestaltet werden.“ (SW 9) (SW 9: 255-261)
(The transition from youth care to independent living is not structured per se, but has to
somehow, Int: it has to SW 9: it has to be structured.)
„das ist so also eher mein Stil“ (SW 3) (SW 3: 120) (But that is rather my individual stile)
„Dann ist natürlich diese Grenze zum 21. Dann ist wirklich Ende im Gelände, ne?, dann
muss man.“ (SW 1: 162-163) (Then there ist he limit at the age of 21. Then it really is the end
of the line. Then you have to.)
Int.: Und gesetzlich gesehen ist es ja mit 21 der späteste Zeitpunkt oder? SW 2: Nee ist auch
falsch. das ist falsch, (…) das ist einfach ne falsche Information, wo das KJHG einfach falsch
intepretiert wird. Ja ja klar. Und die meisten Kollegen glauben das auch selber, weil ihnen das
mal irgendeiner erzählt hat. und wir haben jetzt gerade letztes Jahr ne zwei Fälle gehabt, wo
wir das wirklich aushebeln konnten. aber das ist richtig richtig, was heißt aushebeln, wo wir
eben die Ausnahme beantragt und bewilligt bekommen haben hier für Jugendliche die
eigentlich, obwohl sie 21 waren,“ Int: and legally the deadline is 21, right? SW 2: No, that is
also wrong, that is wrong. (..) It is simply wrong information, where the Social Act (SGB
VIII) is interpreted wrongly. Int: By the YWO? SW 2: Yes yes of course. And my colleagues
also believe it, because someone once told them And now last year we just had two cases,
where we could get around it, but that is really really, what means get around it, where we
applied for an exception got it granted here for young people, that originally, although they
were 21.” (SW 2: 437-456).
„also was ich halt immer so als Punkt ist ok, so lange die Schule läuft, das ist ganz wichtig,
das ist das A und O hier, Bildung. und da soll der oder diejenige auf jeden Fall bis zum
sicheren Punkt begleitet werden.“ (SW 4) (SW 4: 48-50) (Well what I always, as a point is,
ok, as long as they go to school, that is the essential thing, education, and there the one should
in any case be accompanied to a secure point”
“Es ist ganz viel, Zuverlässigkeit, ist es da? Äh, bist du ausreichend um dich selber besorgt?
Ja, beziehungsweise, es gibt ja auch Bereiche, da kannst du gar nciht erwarten, dass sie den
kompletten Überblick haben also was das Ausländer- und Asylrecht angeht, die ganzen
Behördenstrukturen also das ist ja n Riesen Wirrwar und da zumindest also bis zum gewissen
Punkt erwarte ich, dass sies verstanden haben, wo krieg ich mein Geld her, wo krieg ich
andere Papiere her und gegebenenfalls weiß ich, wo ich mir Hilfe hole. Also bis dahin, soweit
sollten sie sein.” (SW 4) (SW 4: 61-67) (It’s a lot about reliability, is it there? Äh, are you
sufficiently concerned about yourself? Yes, or rather, there are also areas, there you cannot
expect that they have the full overview in respect of the migration and asylum laws, the
administrative structures, also that is a huge huddle and there well to this point I expect that
they have understood it, where do I get my money from, where do I get other papers and if
needed, knowing here I get help. So until there, that’s what they should be able to”
“Gesettlet, also sie haben zunächst mal einen einen ähm Pause, ja einen Realitäts-, also einen
recht fundiertes Realitätsbewusstsein entwickelt //mhm// mm. hm. Das ähm von ihnen viel
abhängt, was ihr späteres Leben angeht und ähm (Pause) dass sie eine eine äh ja Erkenntnis
gewonnen haben, ich muss meine Sachen ähm allein selbständig, selbständig, ich muss meine
Sachen selbständig anpacken.“ (SW 2) (SW 2: 101-105) (Settled, well they first have a (…),
well a sense of, meaning developed a quite funded sense of realiy //mhm// mm.hm. That äh, a
8
lot dpends on them, what regards their future life and äh, that they yes, gained an awareness, I
have to go about my things äh myself, self-dependently, I have to tackle my things
independently.”)
„und äh die glaub, also meine Meinung nach brauchen die ganz viel Stabilisierung und
Selbstbewusstsein, damit die überhaupt hier konstruktiv an der Gesellschaft teilnehmen
können, das können sie ja in der Jugendhilfe kriegen“ (SW 9) (SW 9: 316-318) (And I think,
well in my opinion they need a lot of stabilization and self-esteem, in order to be able at all to
participate constructively in society, and that they can get in youth care)
könnte man halt gucken, dass man die mit 20 hier ausziehen lässt, dass die trotzdem im
Träger bleiben, dass die vielleicht weiter ambulant betreut bleiben, dass würde auch der
Anwalt noch für sie zuständig bleiben, dann würde auch der Therapeut vielleicht noch für sie
zuständig sein können, „then you could see that you let them move out from here at the age of
20, that they still stay within the organiaztion, that they can maybe get ambulant aftercare.
Then the lawyer would still be in charge for them and the therapist could also maybe still be
available to them” (SW 9: 562-566)
Wenn sie mit mir als Jugendamt nicht mehr kooperieren, sind sie raus. Also wenn sie massiv
nicht kooperieren. nur weil sie mal sagen, mach ich nicht, nicht natürlich. If they don’t
cooperate with mea s the Youth Welfare Agency, then they are out. If they massively don’t
cooperate, just because they say once: I won’t do it, of course that’s not enough. (SW 3: 559561)
„aber das ich nach 3 Jahren immer noch mit denen diskutiere warum als Frau das und das
machen darf ne, is oder jemand wie Sexualität in Deutschland läuft oder solche Sachen, dass
man nicht versteht dass die das in den Wohnunterkünften nicht lernen, aber das so voraussetzt
dass die das aber verstehen müssen, wenn man hierher kommt, ähm ist halt eben so traurig,
also die bräuchten eigentlich alle einen Betreuer um hier irgendwann gesellschaftsfähig leben
zu können ne? also gesellschaftsfähig in dem Sinne was man gerne von ihnen hätte, also
arbeiten gehen, äh hier icht auffallen ne? so. wie man sich als guter Deutscher eben verhält ne
@(.)@“ „so das war jetzt ironie ne?“(SW 8: 539-546) (but that after 3 years I still discuss
with them why as a woman is allowed to do this and that, or someone how sexuality works in
Germany or such things, that one (society/authorities) doesn’t understand that they (UASYP)
don’t learn that in shelters for asylum seekers, but that they are expected to understand that,
when they come here, well it is sad, they should all have a support person to be able to live
here in a socially acceptable way, right? In a socially acceptable way in the sense that what
one expects from them, er to work here, not to stick out, right? So. To behave as a good
German, right? (laughs), ok that was irony, right?”)
“Und wenn die das nicht wollen, also wie die meisten nicht wollen und da kommt jetzt:
Auszug wird anvisiert dann haben die nichts mitzureden. Also da sind die in aller Deutlichkeit
auf uns angewiesen.“ (SW 2: 421-423). (And if they don’t want that (leave care), which most
of them don’t and then it comes (by the YWO): Care leaving is the next goal, then they don’t
have anything to say. There they are very clearly dependent on us)
Und er kam nach Hause, schmiss diese Unterlagen ins Büro, baute sich vor mir auf und sagte
so wütend, mit Tränen, also so ganz schlimm, so richtig sauer auch: Ich mach hier gar nichts
mehr, geh nicht mehr zur Schule Scheiße und blablabla, bevor ich keinen deutschen Pass hab,
mach ich hier nichts so, ne? und knallte die Tür zu und ich dachte: Oh mein Gott also dieser
Junge so ne?, das war echt also krasser als, das kann man sich nicht vorstellen, aber da ist mir
wieder klar geworden, was das mit denen macht, also wie schlimm das ist. (SW 5: 572-580 )
9
(And he came home, threw the documents into the office, stood up in front of me and said soo
angrily, with tears, so really badly, so really madly too: I am not gonna do anything here
anymore, won’t go to school anymore, shit and blablabla, until I have a German passport, I
won’t do anything! So right? And slammed the door and I thought: Oh my god this boy,
really? That was stronger than, you can’t imagine, but there I realized again, what it does to
them, how bad it is.)
„ich hab 3 mit sicherem Status und eins ist klar, als sie diesen gekriegt haben, das war ne
Entlastung, das hat man richtig gemerkt. Die schlafen plötzlich besser, die haben weniger
Kopfschmerzen, die haben bestimmte Symptome nicht mehr.(SW 5: 552-554) (I have 3 with
a secure status and one thing is clear: When they received it, it was a relief, you could really
see that. They suddenly sleep better, they have less headaches, they don’t have certain
symptoms anymore)
die schlafen zum Beispiel nachts einfach nicht, weil sie Albträume haben oder so und gehen
dann nicht zur Schule. und wenn man dann halt 35 Fehltage in einem Halbjahr hat, is das
schwierig sich damit zu bewerben.” (SW 1: 575-577) (They don’t sleep at night for example,
because they have nightmares for example and then they don’t go to school anymore and if
they then have 35 days of absence in one semester, it is really hard to apply for a job with
that)
er wird keine Arbeitserlaubnis erhalten, ne? ähm. keine Wohnung, ne? also, wenn wir,
momentan, wenn wir es ganz schwarz malen, nach drei Jahren Jugendhilfe, ine
Wohnunterkunft entlassen wird ne?“(SW 8: 110-112) (he won’t get a work permit, er no flat,
if we, right now, if we paint it black, after three years of youth care, he will be discharged into
a homeless shelter (Wohnunterkunft))
„Ich glaub das liegt daran, dass die äh, ja, hier deutlich zu kämpfen haben. Eben mit dieser
ganzen Belastung. Bringt das was, dass ich mir überhaupt ein Bein ausreiße oder bringt das
nichts, ne? Oder was vielleicht noch nicht mal so rational, sondern oh gott, was wenn ich
dann wieder zurück muss? Angst auch. (SW 2: 682-685) (I think it’s because, that they er,
yes, have to fight clearly here. Because of this whole burden. Does it at all pay off that I work
this hard or is it all in vain? Or what maybe not even so rationally, more like: oh god, what if I
have to go back? Fear too.)
„Das macht zum Teil die Hilfeplanung schwierig. Weil die keine Ausbildung anfangen
dürfen, keine Arbeit anfangen dürfen“ (SW 3: 265-266) (That partly renders care planning
difficult. Becaue they can’t start a voctaional training)
du hast sozusagen die zwei Kategorien, Der Jugendliche, der einen langfristigen Aufenthalt in
Deutschland, den auch schon auf dem Papier stehen hat, so dass du der auch ne
Arbeitserlaubnis hat, so dass du ne ganz andere Arbeit, ine ganz andere Richtung arbeiten
kannst, nämlich mit Wohnungssuche, Ausbildungssuche, Verselbständigung, blablabla, der
Perspektive, und du hast den Jugendlichen, der das alles nicht hat, wo es sehr unsicher ist, wo
die Wahrscheinlichkeit einer Abschiebung hoch liegt, //mhm// wo du natürlich irgendwie, da
kann man auch nicht drumrum, dass das auch die eigene Arbeit beeinflusst, //mhm// wenn du
die Perspektive nicht hast, //mhm// also du prügelst den jetzt durch die Schule, also du musst
die ja nicht prügeln, meistens machen die das ja selbständig, aber du unterstützt den in der
Schule, gibst Nachhilfe, investierst blablabla und der der wird nie ne Ausbildung machen
dürfen, weil der nie Beschäftigungserlaubnis kriegt, weil der mit 19 wahrscheinlich wieder
zurück muss, wenn nicht noch irgendwie was, n Wunder geschieht ne? Und natürlich ist das
ein anderes arbeiten. (SW 5: 439-451) You have basically two categories. That young person
10
who has a long term residence permit in Germany, that has it already on paper, so that he also
has a work permit so that you can do a completely different job, work into a completely
different direction. That is to say look for housing, job search, assist process of becoming
independent, bla blabla, that perspective. Und you have the young person, that has nothing of
that, where it is really insecure, where the probability of a deportation is high, //mhm// where
you naturally, you cannot get around it, that this also influences your own work. //mhm// If
you don’t have the perspective //mhm// [..] but you support them in school, give private
tutoring, invest blablabla and then he will never be allowed to do enter a vocational training,
because he will never get a work permit, because he probably has to go back at the age of 19,
if nothing, if not somehow a miracle happens, right? And that of course is a different way of
working.
„Naja, dann geht der Fokus natürlich dahin, dass die nen Aufenthalt bekommen ne? Dann
wird kein eigener Wohnraum gesucht, geht auch gar nicht, bekommen die nicht, sondern wir
konzentrieren uns da darauf, dass die gut integriert sind, dass die Schule gut läuft, und äh
versuchen immer wieder mit Anwältinnen zu gucken wie kommen wir im Asylverfahren
weiter“ (SW 4: 282-286) (Well, than the focus shifts to trying to get them a residence permit.
Then we don’t look for housing, it’s also not possible, they don’t get any, but we concentrate
on, that they are well integrated, that it’s going well at school, and er we try repeatedly with
lawyers to see how to come forth in the asylum process)
hat mich immer gefragt: *******, wofür mach ich das alles? //mhm// wofür mach ich das,
wenn ich noch gar nicht weiß? //mhm// und ich hab immer gesagt: das klappt schon, so.
//mhm// und jetzt muss ich ihm sagen, achso, nee das klappt übrigens doch nicht.“(SW 9: 139142) (He always asked me: *******, What for am I doing all this? //mhm// What for am I
doing this if I still don’t know? //mhm// and I always said: It will be alright, so. And now I
have to tell him: oh, no by the way it is not going to be alright)
And if you are placed in care the way you are placed here, where the carers tell you, yes ok,
that is how the system is and it is explained and such, then then you can keep up the
motivation and then there are also opportunities (SW 9: 195.198).
und wenn man dann aber so betreut ist wie hier, wo die Betreuer sagen, ja gut aber so ist das
System und das erklärt wird und so, dann dann kann einem das, kann die Motivation erhalten
bleiben sozusagen und dann gibt es auch Chancen. And if you are placed in acre the way you
are placed here, where the carers tell you, yes ok, that is how the system is and it is explained
and such, then then you can keep up the motivation and then there are also opportunities (SW
9: 195.198)
da ist ein Widerspruch eigentlich von der Intention ähm des Auftraggebers macht mal alles
mit denen, also ich würde es jetzt mal so formulieren, macht alles mit denen, ähm das die hier
für die Zeit wo de hier sind, äh einigermaßen sich ordentlich verhalten und äh ja. sich
ordentlich benehmen so, zur Schule gehen, nicht kriminell werden, nicht zu hohe Ansprüche
stellen sollen froh sein, dass sie hier sind für die Zeit dass sie hier sind aber ähm. wir gehen
mal davon aus, das ist nicht auf Dauer, so das ist so die Intention. und ähm. da würde ich mir
ne andere Klarheit wünschen: Wir gehen davon aus, dass das auf Dauer sein soll. wenn die
das wirklich wollen, die jungen Leute. That is basically a contradiction in the intention er of
the contractee (Auftraggeber): do everything with them, that’s how I would phrase this, do
everything with them, er so that for the time they are here they behave fairly well and er yes,
behave well, go to school, don’t commit crimes, don’t make too high demands and are happy
for the time they can be here, but er we assume that this is not permanently, so that is the
11
intention. And er there I would wish for a different clarity: We assume that this is permanent.
If they really want it, the young persons. (SW 2: 302-310)
„und das sag ich aber auch ne? nutz deine Zeit hier, du bist sicher, dass keine Abschiebung
kommt und dein Antrag bereits offensichtlich unbegründet abgelehnt wurde und das kann
dann sein, dass du doch relativ schnell auch wieder zu Hause bist, //mhm// ähm, aber
wahrscheinlich erst mit Volljährigkeit. //OK//. weil die Kinder einfach nach der
Flüchtlingskonvention, ne minderjährig sind.“ (SW 7: 449-453) (And I also tell them, right?
Use your time here, you are safe, you won’t be deported and your application is already
dismissed as obviously ungrounded and then it can be that you have to go home quite soon,
//mhm// er but probably only after turning 18. //ok//. Simply because the children are still
minors after the refugee convention)
Weil daran klammern sich die Jugendlichen, ne? So. das äh Ich finde die sehen das so als
Orientierung so, und wenn sie eine Ablehnung bekommen, fallen sie in ein tiefes Loch und
denken es ist alles vorbei und da muss man sie natürlich rausholen und sagen nee (Because
this is what they cling to you know? [the asylum decision] So I think they see that as an
orientiation and if they receive a negative answer they fall into a sort of limbo and think that
everything is over. And there you have to get them out of course and say no. (SW 7: 384-387)
„meine Theorie ist, dass es Vermieter gibt, die da auch Vorurteile haben sich Afghanen in die
Bude zu setzen.“ (SW 3: 211-212.) (My theory is, that there are landlords that also have
prejudice to let an Afghan into their houses)
„Die haben zum Teil nur Duldungen oder Aufenthaltsgestattungen für 6 Monate oder für ein
Jahr, und da lässt sich nicht jeder Vermieter drauf ein. also grad auf Duldungen lassen sich die
Vermieter nicht ein. So das wir für die auf dem normalen Wohnungsmarkt einfach keine
Wohnungen finden. Dann kommt meistens noch dazu dass die ja im Sozialleistungsbezug
dort stehen würden was auch viele Vermieter abschreckt und dann haben sie in der Regel
noch unaussprechliche Namen und äh meine Theorie ist, dass es Vermieter gibt, die da auch
Vorurteile haben.“ (SW 3: 205-212) (They are partly only tolerated or only have residence
permits for 6 months or a year. Not every landlord lets himself in on this. This is why on the
normal housing market we can’t find flats for them. They additionally mostly also receive
welfare which repels many landlords and they additionally have unpronounceable names and
er my theory is, that they are also landlords that have prejudices)
Wie gesagt im Hinblick auf Personalressourcen isses sehr sehr schwierig wenn halt zwei oder
drei Klienten auf einmal ähm ausziehen bzw. perspektivisch ausziehen, kann man das nicht
leisten, weil dann stehen da nochmal zwei andere von denen ich dann auch Bezugsbetreuer
bin, das geht einfach nicht, da kann ich mich nicht 10 Stunden in der Woche für Leute mit der
Wohnungssuche beschäftigen (SW 1:299-303) (As I said before concerning personal
resources it is very very difficult. If two or three clients move out at the same time, or also
perspectively will move out soon, then you can’t manage. Because you also have two more of
which you are the key worker. It is just not possible. I can’t preoccupy myself 10 hours a
week with finding flats for them.)
„Äh und der andere war ein unbegleiteter, so und ähm, das lag nicht daran dass der nicht
selbständig gewesen ist, sondern dass es an Wohnungen gemangelt hat. (lacht) es gibt keine
Wohnungen!” (SW 2: 462-464) (Er and the other one was an unaccompanied, so and er, it
wasn’t because he wasn’t independent, but because there was a lack of housing. (laughs) there
are no flats!)
12
„Das ist unterschiedlich, das hängt wirklich von dem zuständigen Sachbearbeiter des
Jugendamt ab, ob der das für sinnvoll erachtet oder nicht. Zack, fertig. Mal gibst das ja, mal
gibts das nicht.“ (SW 2) It depends. It really depends on the case manager in charge of the
YWO if he/she regards it reasonable or not. Bam, end of story. Sometimes they do sometimes
they don’t. (SW 2: 374-376)
„Man kann alles machen, man muss es nur richtig begründen“ (SW 3) You can do everything
you just have to find good reasons to justify it. (SW 3: 705-706)
„Nee ist auch falsch. das ist falsch, das ist ne Sache wo gerade wir gerade wir hier mit viel
Mühe und viel Energie, deswegen sach ich also bevor man mit dem Jugendamt in Clinch geht
muss man sich das reiflich überlegen, weil das kostet richtig, was sagen wir immer Sport? das
kostet richtig Körner. das ist einfach ne falsche Information, wo das KJHG einfach falsch
interpretiert wird.“ (SW 2) it’s a thing where we just now with a lot of effort and energy, that
why I say: before you start fighting with the YWO you have consider it carefully, because it
really takes from you. How do we say in sports: It really takes grains from you. It is just
wrong information, where the Social Act is interpreted wrongly. (SW 2: 440-444)
Und wir kommen da natürlich deutlich an unsere Grenzen. Also wenn ich hab ja jetzt shcon
die ganze Palette aufgezeigt, was wir alles machen und da gehen wir dann selbst in die joa in
die Rechtsberatung mit denen. And there we are clearly stretched to our limits. I have already
illustrated the whole range of what we do and then we even go into legal counseling with
them. (SW 2: 534-536)
Ich glaube also zumindest bei uns hier, ich kann ja wenig über andere Projekte sprechen, aber
das wär mal interessant mit anderen Kollegen darüber zu sprechen also ich glaube hier bei uns
wird die Gefahr mm der ein minderjähriger oder dann ein erwachsener unbegleiteter
ausgesetzt ist in dieser Gesellschaft, äh als höher eingestuft als für normale also "normale"
deutsche Jugendliche, weil bei denen eben auch deutlichst dieses Damoklesschwert der
Abschiebung hängt, also ich glaube das die von daher ne andere ne andere Aufmerksamkeit
und ne andere Unterstützung”(SW 2: 151-157) (I think that at least here with us, I can say
little about other projects, but it would be interesting to discuss this with other colleagues,
well I believe here with us the danger, er that a minor or then an adult unaccompanied is
exposed to in this society, er is considered higher than for normal, I mean „normal“ German
young people, because above them (UASYP) is also hanging the sword of Damocles of the
deportation, so I think that because of that they get another kind of attention and another kind
of support“
Bei einigen denk ich schon das wär schade wenn die sich nicht drum bemühen würden und in
der Wohnunterkunft landen. Unsere deutschen Jugendlichen, die haben in der Regel ne
Herkunftsfamilie, wo wir die hin zurückschicken könnten. wo wir sagen können, ey weißte,
entweder du machst hier mit, oder du gehst, wir beenden die Hilfe und du gehst zurück zu
deiner Mutter. Das kannst du ja mit denen immer nicht. Da ist ja keine Mutter, da ist ja auch
kein Vater.“(SW 3: 905-911) (With some I think it would be a pity if they wouldn’t try hard
enough and end up in a homeless shelter. Our German youth, they usually have a family of
origin, where we could send them back to, where we could say, hey you know, either you
cooperate or you leave, we end care and you go back to your mother. That you can’t do with
them (UASYP). There is no mother, There is no father.)
„Guckst du wohlwollender auf sie vielleicht? M.P.: Äh, ja. jein. Person 2: Oder
verständnisvoller? Ich weiß es nicht. M.P.: Zum Teil. Also bzw der Blick auf deutsche
Jugendliche verändert sich. Weil ich sehe, was die trotz ihres Päckchens schaffen. Was die
13
deutschen Jugendlichen gar nicht gebacken kriegen. Wobei da hab ich auch welche, die dann
irgendwann ein Studium angefangen haben. Ich hab die Hilfe beendet und die sind zum
studieren weggegangen. so hm. #00:56:17-0# Person 2: M.P.: das ist schon ein andere Blick.
Spielt auch manchmal so, also manchmal hast du auch echt Mitleid mit denen. das bleibt ja
nicht aus.“ Int: do you look more benevolent on them maybe? SW 3: Er yes. No. Yo. Int: or
more sympathetically? I don’t know. SW 3: Partly. Well, or rather the view on German youth
changes. When I see what they manage despite their cross. The German youth don’t manage
that at all. Although there I also have some that then one day started studying. I ended the
measure and the went away for studying. So. Int: Yes SW 3: It is a different view on them.
Sometimes it also plays a role, sometimes you really feel pity for them. That’s unavoidable.
(SW 3: 925-935)
For these young people it’s a balancing act, between cultures and countries and laws. So
much, in such a short time they have to learn so incredibly much and know, because that is
asked for. You cannot violate anything //mhm// so this is one thing, one challenge for them.
And here they need to receive full support; I think that is the purpose of all this work with the
young refugees, so they deserve the help partly even more than others. (SW 7: 893-900)
„Also grundsätzlich wie jeder Mensch, also da mach ich überhaupt keinen Unterschied ne?
also das besondere ist natürlich, dass sie diese Sprache hier nicht sprechen und da brauchen
sie ganz doll Unterstützung durch die Systeme hier well basically like every other human
being, i dont differentiate there at all. The particularity is of course that the don’t speak this
language here and there they need a very strong support thorugh the systems here. (SW 7:
777-779)
„Also ┘es sind also es, hier sind Jugendliche die sind hochgradig intelligent, das ist
unglaublich. äh wir haben Jugendliche hier, die die Sprache irgendwie in 6 Monaten gelernt
haben, später findest du raus, die haben auf dem Weg, ne wo auch immer die stecken
geblieben sind, die Sprache sofort erlernt, die beherrschen mehrere Sprachen, sind
Hochleistungssportler dabei, super Musiker sind dabei also künstlerisch gibts ganz viel, es
gibt ganz viele die äh politisch sich aktiv machen, das interessiert sie, ne die haben so n riesen
Sinn für Gerechtigkeit bzw Ungerechtigkeit und arbeiten dahin, also es gibt alles mögliche.
Also wir haben hier Jugendliche, die begleiten wir bis zum Abitur und die legen n 1er Abitur
hin, kriegen aber keinen Aufenthalt, ne da gibt es halt, sowas seh ich total viel. dann gibt es
auch jetzt so ganz viele die halt irgendwie vorher gewisse Sachen gelernt haben, sind dann
irgendwie Schneider und können dann total toll irgendwie arbeiten, dürfens aber nicht. (well
they are, here are adolescents that are highly intelligent, it is unbelievable. Er we have young
people here, that have learnt the language in 6 months, later you find out, they have on their
flight, wherever they were, picked up the language, they speak several languages. Among
them are top athletes, great musicians, artistic persons you have a lot. There are many that er
are politically active, they are interested in that, they have a great sense for justice or injustice
and work towards, so you see all sorts of things. We have youth here that we accompany until
the A-levels [highest school degree], but they don’t receive a residence permit, so you have
something like that, that I see a lot. Then you have many that have learned certain things
before like they are tailors and know how to do great things, they are just not allowed to. (SW
4: 312-323)
„Überlebensfähig, also die sind Überlebensmenschen. Sonst wären sie nicht hier. Mir ist
durchaus bewusst, dass viele auf dem Weg auch nicht mehr ankommen und die die hier
ankommen haben ne Menge gesehen und mitgemacht aber haben immer die Stärke gehabt
weiter zu gehen.“ „Able to survive, I mean that they are survivors. Otherwise they wouldn’t
be here. I am very well aware that many that are on their way don’t get here. And those that
14
get here have seen a lot and experienced a lot, but always had the strength to go on.” (SW 3:
504-507)
„Was ich sehe ist, dass ganz viele Ressourcen, die sie haben nciht genutzt werden und im
system nicht verwendet werden, was ich schade finde. Also, sie sind alles, mehrsprachler. 3-4
Sprachen, alle fließend irgendwann, wenn sie deutsch gut lernen. Sie haben oft in ihrem
Heimatland in dem entsprechenden Beruf des Vaters gearbeitet, das heißt Friseur, Schneider,
Schuhmacher, Automechaniker. Die sind, die haben oft ne Vorbildung, das wird aber, es fragt
keiner. Es interessiert keinen. Also das ist auch so, dass wir das erst nach langer Zeit oft raus
finden, dass du da jemanden hast, der ausgebildeter Schneider ist, also der perfekt dir alles
zurecht schneiden kann und Friseur auch noch, weißt du also, so. Es dauert manchmal bis zu
einem halben Jahr bis unser System das raus findet. What I see is that many of he resources
they have are not made use of by them and in the system. I think that is a shame. Well, they
all speak several languages. 3-4, all of them fluently one day, if they learn German properly.
They often worked in the profession of their fathers in their home countries. That means,
barber, tailor, shoemaker, car mechanic. They often have an education, but it is, no one akss
for it. No one is interested in that. It’s like thta that we often only after a long time find out
that you have someone there that is a trained tailor, that can tailor everything perfectly for you
and barber too at the same time, you know? It takes up to half a year until our system finds
that out. (SW 5: 667-676)
„hmm. doch das denk ich schon, auf jeden Fall. Allein schon also auch vom Freundeskreis
her, diese Unterstützung und dieser Zusammenhalt das ist einfach und dieses Wissen, da sind
Leute die akzeptieren mich so wie ich bin, auch wenn ich jetzt keinen Job finde zum Beispiel.
(hmm. I think yes, definitely. Simply from their group of friends, this support and solidarity
that is just, and this knowledge, there are people, that accept me, the way I am, even if I don’t
find a job for example.) (SW 1: 670-673)
„Wir versuchen die in Vereine zu kriegen, Fußballvereine, etc, das ist den Trainern zu
anstrengend, wenn sie nicht deutsch sprechen, in der Schule sind sie nur mit Ausländern
zusammen, in Deutschkursen sind sie nur mit Ausländern zusammen, es gibt super viele tolle
Angebote für Flüchtlinge, aber sind halt immer nur Flüchtlinge. So und die in normale
Angebote also in normale Freizeitangebote zu bekommen in Deutschland, ohne Geld, is halt
schwierig, weil das Geld ist nicht da so, und ähm,//mhm// oder begrenzt nur. Jetzt haben wir
gerade zwei, ich bin mal gespannt, die machen im März n Monat Schwimmkurs, die können
nicht schwimmen.“ (SW 5: 734-742) ( We try to get them into football clubs etc, that is too
tiring for the coaches, if they don’t speak German. At school they are only surrounded by
foreigners, in the German language courses they are only together with foreigners, there are
great offers for refugees, but then it’s always only refugees. So, and normal offers, getting
them into normal leisure activity offers in Germany, without money, that is difficult, because
the money is not there and //mhm// or only limited. Now I am having two, I am curious to see,
they are going to do a swimming course in March, they can’t swim.”
„Die sind natürlich viel besser ausgestattet mit Vitamin B. Ne? Dann sitzt da jemand, die halt
hier in der Gesellschaft groß geworden ist, vielleicht sogar hier in Hamburg groß geworden ist
und entsprechend dann äh Dinge organisieren kann.“(SW 4: 469-472) (They are of course
much better equipped with good contacts (Vitamin B). That is someone that grew up in this
society, maybe even here in Hamburg and correspondingly can er organize things)
“man muss es anleiten, sonst gehen sie da nicht hin, man muss dran bleiben und sie begleiten,
man muss nachfragen man muss manchmal auch mitmachen, so dann dann können das
wirklich ganz tolle, wirklich ganz tolle Beziehungen entstehen .... das ist Netzwerke sind
15
Beziehungen.“(SW 7: 847-850) (You have to guide it, otherwise they don’t go, you have to
follow it up and accompany them, you have to inquire, you sometimes have to particpiate too,
so and then there is the chance that really good relationships develop… that is networks and
relationships.)
„Einer ja, einer, nein, also das Netzwerk meiner beiden Afghanen ist in beiden Fällen sehr
gut, sehr stabil und sehr gut. Egal mit welchem von beiden ich auf die Straße geh, die treffen
immer Leute, die sind wieder ganz, ich bitte dich ich bin seit 43 Jahren in Hamburg und kenn
nicht so viele Leute wie die. Also die treffen immer jemanden, haben ein gutes Netzwerk, der
mmm, der jetzt in die Ausbildung wechselt, der hatte ganz viele Freunde, die ihm bei seinem
Umzug geholfen haben, die mit Möbel getragen haben und mit denen er auch seine Freizeit
oder einen großen Teil seiner Freizeit verbringt also der ist auch wirklich nie alleine und hat
auch wirklich coole Freunde, da drunter, die auch mitten im Leben stehen. (…)Also
Netzwerke haben die beiden schon auch im privaten Bereich. Gute, große Netzwerke.“ (One
yes, one no, well the network of my two Afghans is in both cases very good, very stable and
very good. No matter with which of the two I go out on the street, they always meet people,
they are again very, I mean come on, I have been in Hamburg for 43 years and don’t know as
many people as they do. They always meet someone, have a good network, the one that
mmm, now starts vocational training, always had many friends that helped him with moving,
carried furniture and that he spent his free time or a big part of his free time with them, so he
really is never alone and also has really cool friends among those, that have both feet on the
ground. […] So both of them do have networks, also in their private life. Good, big
networks.” (SW 6: 536-549)
„hat ja beim Umzug mitgeholfen, also das läuft mehr auf der Ebene, das ist nicht so was was
man ja, so ähm, von hier kennt. so dauerhafte Freundschaften oder sowas, also das mein ich
mit Beziehungen, feste Beziehungen eingehen.“ (SW 2: 675-678) („helped with moving, so it
is more and that level. It is not like something that we, er know from here, like long lasting
friendships or something. That’s what I mean with relationships, er entering stable
relationships.”)
„Also bezüglich Integration halte ich das nicht für erfolgreich eigentlich. Und das wird glaub
ich sogar gefördert durch die, durch das Angebot an Schule. Also die meisten kommen ja in
so genannte Auffangklassen. Und die, wo also, ähm, ja eigentlich nur junge Leute mit
Migrationshintergrund zusammen sind“Well regarding integration I don’t think that is very
successful. And I think that is even furthered by the schools. Most of them come into these
classes for immigrants (Auffangklassen). And there, where yes, there they are together only
with young persons with a migration background. (SW 2: 584-588).
„Und das liegt aber auch daran, dass sie natürlich mit vielen Zugangsverhindernden Faktoren
ausgestattet sind, also kulturell unterschiedlich, sprachlich, äh traumatisiert, äh mitten in der
Pubertät, dabei darfst du ja nicht vergessen, es sind irgendwie immer noch Kinder so.
Wurzellos. Naja wurzellos nicht, aber wurzelvermissend, abgekappt, das sind glaub ich auch
alles Faktoren auf der Seite des Flüchtlings, die Zugang erschweren und die Gesellschaft ist
darauf nicht sensibilisiert. Man muss aber auch sagen es gibt Projekte und Anlaufstellen, die
sich ja genau dieser Thematik öffnen und die auch genau also die dann auch versuchen
Verbindungen herzustellen, da fällt mir irgendwie Café Exil, Why not, UKE
Flüchtlingsambulanz, die machen ganz viel in die Richtung, und“ (SW 5: 840-849) (And that
is also because they of course are equipped with „access preventing factors“. Culturally
different, language wise, er traumatized, er in the middle of puberty, and you can’t forget,
they are also somehow still children. Rootless. Well, not rootless, but missing roots, cut off.
Those I think are all factors on the part of the refugee, that complicate access. And the society
16
also is not sensitized for that. You also have to say though that there are projects and contact
points, that open up to exactly this topic and that also, that try to connect them. I can think of
several, such as Café Exil, Why not, UKE refugee “ambulanz”, they are very active regarding
this.”
That’s why I also find it important that they in their community, their family, their relations,
still find a piece of home. (SW 5: 311-312)
Wenn die Jugendlichen in so Mittelschichtsfamilien untergebracht wären, dann hast du
natürlich, dann schickst du die zum Sport und man kennt sich, das ist ja was ganz anderes als
wenn irgendwie sagt, ja hier ich betreu den Jugendlichen, darf der mitspielen? ne? So, ja
komm Dieter, wir sind Nachbarn und du machst doch Fußball da, mit den Jungs, kann ich den
da mal hinschicken.“(SW 5: 802-807) (If the adolescents were accommodated in middle class
families, then you have, then you send them to join sport clubs, where one knows each other.
And that makes a difference, if they say, well I am the carer of this young person, can he join?
So, come on Dieter (as example for coach name), we are neighbors and you coach the guys in
soccer, can I send him to you?)
„und das dazu kommt eben auch, dass die durch die Jugendhilfe auch nur deutsche
Jugendliche kennen lernen die auch traumatisiert sind und eben auch irgendwie ähm (...)
schwierig sind und deswegen auch häufig denken, ja deutsche Jugendliche haben ja auch
irgendwie alle n Knall (SW 9: 575-578) (And additionally through youth care they only meet
German youth that is also traumatized and that are also, er difficult and thats why they often
think, well German young people are all somewhat nuts)
das heißt die haben in der Vergangenheit ganz viel von diesen Netzwerken nutzen müssen um
zu Überleben. (SW 3: 538-539) (“that means that in the past they had to use many of these
networks to survive“)
Wenn sie hier ankommen, die Betreuer //mhm//. Also für die, die hier sind, sind wir das. (SW
9: 541-542). (When they get here, the social workers //mhm//. For those that are here, it is us
(most important))
„Ohne arrogant zu klingen, wir. Ja, wir. also mit diesen Menschen, die hier leben, also mit
diesen Jugendlichen, die mit hier leben, also wir haben hier sehr starke Freundschaften und
die werden auch glaube ich ein gutes Stück ähm über dieses Haus hinweg bestehen bleiben,
ne. //ok// also wirkliche Freundschaften und wenn es ihnen schlecht geht ähm dann sieht die
auch füreinander da und reden auch viel mehr untereinander, als sie mit uns reden, also diese
Entscheidungsfreiheit haben sie ja einfach, ähm aber ansonsten für wichtige Sachen sind, gibt
es eigentlich nur uns. //ok// wenn Bezug zur Herkunftsfamilie besteht, dann ist es auch so,
dass dieser, diese also einer von uns hat einen sehr starken Bezug zu seiner Schwester, die
telefonieren wirklich 3,4 mal die Woche miteinander ne.“(SW 8: 496-505) (without sounding
arrogant, us. Yes, it’s us. With the persons that live here, with these young people, that also
live here, we have very strong friendships here, and thos will also continue I think a good
while after leaving this house. //ok//. Those are real friendships and if they feel bad, er then
they are there for each other and speak a lot among each other, than they speak with us. They
have this choice, but otherwise for important things, there is only us.//ok// if there is contact to
the family, then it is also, that this, er one of ours has a very strong bond to his sister, they talk
3-4 times a week on the phone right?)
„Also nicht zu Personen aus der Jugendhilfe. Dazu baut sich keine Beziehung in dem Sinne
auf. Dass sie wichtig und an langandauernd und so weiter ist. Wär auch schwierig“ (SW 3:
17
716-718) ( Not to persons form the youth care system. They don’t develop a relationship to
them in this sense. That it is important and lonlasting and so on. That would be very difficult.)
„Weil ja irgendwann das Ende kommt. Und das sind in der Regel ja auch Jugendliche, die als
Kind oder dann später als Jugendlicher massive Beziehungsabbrüche erfahren haben. Sei es
jetzt weil die Eltern gestorben sind auf der Flucht, weil sie weggeschickt wurden oder weil
der Kontakt aus andern guten Gründen, es gibt ja auch welche, die sind in der Heimat
misshandelt worden und so abgebrochen ist und ich glaube, die wissen: das sind
professionelle, das sind professionelle Helfer und die tun sich schwer damit, das so massiv,
also das so in der Form anzunehmen.“ Because the end is eventually coming. And these are
usually also young people that experienced as a child and later as adolescents massive
disruptions in relationships. May it be because their parents died during the flight, because
they were sent away or because the contact out of other good reasons, there are also some,
that were abused in their home countries and so, the contact was disrupted and I believe they
know: those are professionals, those are professional helpers and they have a hard time, to
accept this so strongly (the help) (SW 3: 722-728)
Also ich seh das jetzt bei meiner Kollegin und bei mir, dass immer noch ehemalige
Jugendliche immer wieder auftauchen, das ehrt natürlich sehr und das heißt ok, da ist ne
Vertrauensbasis, die fühlen sich sicher und kommen wenn was ist aber ich würd nicht sagen,
dass es immer und überall so sind es gibt immer gewisse Stellen, wo die ehemaligen
Jugendlichen immer wieder kommen, (SW 4: 395-399) (I see it with my colleague and
myself, there are still former youth that still come back. That honors of course very much and
that means, ok, there is a basis of trust, they feel safe and come if they have a problem, but I
wouldnt say that it is always and everywhere like this. There are always certain places
(projects) where former cared for young people always come back)
„für einige ist das ein klarer Bruch, für andere, die versuchen denn den zu halten. aber ähm
wir, ähm sind nicht aktiv, also wenn wir keinen Auftrag kriegen, sind wir nicht aktiv, auch
den Kontakt zu halten. ich weiß nicht, ob sich das dann auch vermittelt an die jungen Leute,
ohne dass es ausgesprochen ist, weil, das können wir gar nicht schaffen, das können wir gar
nicht schaffen.“ (SW 2: 626-630) (For some it is a clear disruption, for others, they try then to
keep it, but we, er we are not active. If we don’t get a mandate, then we are not actively trying
to stay in touch. I don’t know if that is also conveyed to the young people, without saying it,
because we can’t manage that, it is impossible)
also ich hab manchmal das Gefühl, das ssie da nicht so interessiert sind und kann mir
vorstellen, dass es daran liegt, dass sie einfach wirklich andere Belastungen mit sich selber
haben, dass die überhaupt nicht in der Lage sind sich auf so was einzulassen, also gar nciht
ich mein auch gar nicht jetzt ne feste Liebesbeziehung, aber ich finde dieser Punkt mit
Mädchen irgendwie oder jungs anzubändeln und so das erfordert ne gewisse Befreitheit und
so, also ne, muss man sich irgendwie drauf einlassen, vielleicht können sies nicht. kann ich
mir vorstellen, dass da son bisschen ihre Traumatisierung im Weg steht. I sometimes have
the feeling, that they are not that interested and I can imagine that it’s because they have so
many strains with themselves, that they are not capable to commit to something like that. Or
not at all, I don’t even mean a serious love relationship, but I think this starting something and
fool around with girls or boy, that requires a certain degree of liberation and you have to
commit somehow and maybe they are unable to do that. I can imagine. That their
traumatization stands in the way. (SW 5: 923-938)
„ Also bis hin zur Heirat. also alles alles, manchmal auch gar nicht aber bis hin zur Heirat und
Kinder kriegen, alles gesehen. Alles erlebt bis hin zur Adoption in der Familie.“ Right up to
18
marriage. So all all, sometimes not, but up to marriage and having kids I have seen it all. Seen
it all through to adoption into the family. (SW 7: 832-833)
19