Listen
53 Ergebnisse
Ergebnisse nach Hochschule und Institut
Publikation Spannungsfelder Sozialpädagogischer Familienbegleitung(21.04.2021) Wetzel, Marina; Fellmann, Lukas06 - PräsentationPublikation Grundlagen und Perspektiven für eine wirkungsvolle kantonale Kinder- und Jugendpolitik. Expertise, Einflussfaktoren und Bestandesaufnahme. Schlussbericht zuhanden der SODK(Hochschule für Soziale Arbeit FHNW, 2024) Gerodetti, Julia; Heeg, Rahel; Schnurr, Stefan; Gerngross, Martina; Fellmann, Lukas; Biesel, KayDer Bericht «Grundlagen und Perspektiven für eine wirkungsvolle kantonale Kinder- und Jugendpolitik – Expertise, Einflussfaktoren und Bestandesaufnahme» ist in drei Teile gegliedert: Der erste Teil des Berichts beschreibt ein normatives Modell einer wirkungsvollen kantonalen Kinder- und Jugendpolitik. Das Modell wurde unter Einbezug verschiedener Expert:innen erarbeitet. Es systematisiert die Rahmenbedingungen für eine wirkungsvolle kantonale Kinder- und Jugendpolitik und beschreibt die kinder- und jugendpolitischen Angebote, die es braucht, damit Schutz, Förderung und Partizipation für Kinder und Jugendliche gewährleistet sind. Die Rahmenbedingungen für eine wirkungsvolle Kinder- und Jugendpolitik beinhalten eine rechtliche Verankerung, angemessene Finanzmittel und Finanzierungsmodelle, Kinder- und Jugendpolitikplanung, Qualitätsentwicklung und Aufsicht, Koordination und Zusammenarbeit der verschiedenen Akteur:innen, Informations- und Wissenstransfers, Unterstützungsaktivitäten der kommunalen Kinder- und Jugendpolitik und entsprechende Strukturen in der kantonalen Verwaltung. Die Angebote für Kinder, Jugendliche, Eltern und Familien umfassen Grundleistungen und Querschnittaufgaben der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe, themenbezogene Programme und Projekte, zivilgesellschaftliche Angebote in Freizeitvereinen und Verbänden sowie Partizipationsformate für Kinder und Jugendliche. Der zweite Teil des Berichts beschreibt Einflussfaktoren, die aus Sicht der Kantone eine zukunftsgerichtete und wirkungsvolle Kinder- und Jugendpolitik positiv oder negativ beeinflussen können, basierend auf empirischen Daten von Fokusgruppeninterviews mit Schlüsselpersonen aus neun Kantonen. Der dritte Teil des Berichts gibt einen Überblick über die aktuelle Situation der Kinder- und Jugendpolitik in den 26 Kantonen und deren Entwicklung in den letzten zehn Jahren, basierend auf empirischen Daten einer standardisierten Befragung aus dem Frühjahr 2024. Die Bestandesaufnahme beschreibt die Verantwortungsbereiche und Strukturen der Kinder- und Jugendpolitik in den Kantonen.05 - Forschungs- oder ArbeitsberichtPublikation Wirkfaktoren der Sozialpädagogischen Familienbegleitung(07.09.2023) Wetzel, Marina; Fellmann, Lukas06 - PräsentationPublikation Leistungsbeschreibung, Zeitrahmen, Umfang, Leistungsabgeltung, Meldepflicht, Anerkennungsvoraussetzungen für begleitete Besuche und begleitete Übergaben im Kanton Bern(Hochschule für Soziale Arbeit FHNW, 2015) Wetzel, Marina; Fellmann, Lukas05 - Forschungs- oder ArbeitsberichtPublikation Exploring the impact of multilocal housing arrangements on the well-being of young people in residential youth care(19.04.2024) Schmid, Thomas; Osswald, Jana; Kindler, Tobias; Fellmann, Lukas; Köngeter, Stefan; Schaffner, Dorothee; Zellner, CaroleExploring the impact of multilocal housing arrangements on the well-being of young people in residential youth care – A quantitative study Background: Previous research in the field of child and youth care has overlooked the fact that many young people in residential care may have multiple residences in addition to their placement. As a result, there is a lack of empirical data on the impact of multilocal housing arrangements on young people's well-being. Research questions: In order to fill this research gap, our study draws on two theoretical frameworks - the Personal Life Theory developed by Carole Smart in 2007 and the perspective of housing as a complex social and educational issue put forward by Miriam Meuth in 2018. The aim of the study is to explore the living arrangements and evaluations of (multiple) residences of young people in residential care and to identify possible factors influencing their well-being. Therefore, we ask what specific living arrangements these young people have, how they evaluate their places of residence, how these places differ for them, and how these housing situations affect their subjective well-being. Methods: Drawing on a quantitative cross-sectional research design, young people living in residential care facilities in the German-speaking part of Switzerland were invited to participate in an online survey that included innovative scales measuring the participants' housing situation on the activity, physical, and emotional dimensions. Respondents' well-being was assessed using the Personal Well-Being Index (Diener 1984, Cummins & Lau 2005). The final sample consisted of 563 young people from 90 different organizations and 15 cantons. Descriptive statistics, analysis of variance, and multivariate regression were used to answer the research questions. Results: The results show that only 17 percent of the young people in our sample live exclusively in a residential care facility. 45 percent live in one additional place, and another 38 percent live in two or more additional places (e.g., with parents, relatives, or friends). While the ratings of their places of residence varied significantly by location, residential care facilities were rated lowest on all three emotional, physical, and activity dimensions. All housing dimensions have a significant impact on well-being, with the emotional dimension having the strongest influence. Conclusions: This study is the first to use a quantitative approach to empirically illustrate Smart and Meuth's arguments. The results show that many young people in residential care do indeed feel attached to multiple places of residence. Although it seems less important in how many places young people live or how long they have lived in one place, the attachment to a place of residence has a significant impact on the well-being of these young people. Therefore, in order to better identify and address the different types of disadvantages faced by young people in residential care, the findings provide valuable suggestions for improving residential care services as a specific place of residence. The conclusion of our presentation will discuss further implications for both theoretical research and practical applications in the field of out-of-home care.06 - PräsentationPublikation The contribution of Social Network Analysis to child protection research. A study example(21.06.2024) Fellmann, Lukas06 - PräsentationPublikation Social and spatial belonging in child and youth residential care: the role of personal networks(19.04.2024) Fellmann, Lukas; Zellner, Carole; Kindler, Tobias; Köngeter, Stefan; Osswald, Jana; Schaffner, Dorothee; Schmid, Thomas06 - PräsentationPublikation Perspectives of young people in residential care on their multilocal residency settings(14.09.2023) Schmid, Thomas; Kindler, Tobias; Osswald, Jana; Fellmann, Lukas; Köngeter, Stefan; Schaffner, Dorothee; Zellner, CaroleBackground: In the field of child and youth care research, our understanding of the living conditions of young people in care is limited. Specifically, previous research has overlooked the fact that many children and young people in residential care may have multiple residences, in addition to their placement. Research questions: In order to fill this gap in research, our study draws on two theoretical frameworks – the Personal Life Theory developed by Carole Smart in 2007 and the perspective on housing as a complex social and pedagogical issue put forth by Miriam Meuth in 2018. The objective of the research is to examine the living arrangements and evaluations of (multiple) residences by young individuals in residential care. Therefore, the following research questions were addressed: (1) What specific living arrangements do young people in residential care have? (2) How do they evaluate their place(s) of residence in terms of emotional, physical and activity dimensions? (3) How do the various residential settings differ in the perspective of the young people? Methods: Drawing on a quantitative cross-sectional research design, young people living in residential care settings in the German-speaking part of Switzerland were invited to participate in an online survey that included innovative scales to measure their multiple residency settings. The final sample consisted of 563 young people from 90 different organizations and 15 cantons. Descriptive statistics and analyses of variance were used to answer the research questions. Results: The results show that only 17 percent of respondents live exclusively in a residential care facility. 45 percent live in one additional place, and another 38 percent live in two or more additional places (e.g., with parents, relatives, or friends). While the ratings of their places of residence varied significantly by location, residential care facilities were rated lowest on all three emotional, physical, and activity dimensions. Conclusions: This study is the first to use a quantitative approach to empirically illustrate Smart and Meuth's arguments. The results show that many young people, particularly those living in residential care, do indeed feel attached to multiple places of residence. Therefore, in order to better identify and address the different types of disadvantages faced by young people in residential care, the findings can provide valuable suggestions for improving residential care services as a specific place of residence. Our presentations conclusion will discuss further implications for both theoretical research and practical applications in the field of out of home care.06 - PräsentationPublikation 99 - SonstigesPublikation 06 - Präsentation