Active factors and justification of measures abroad

Klawe (2014) characterizes travel projects as a deliberate suspension of everyday life accompanied by the testing of physical and mental limits, a craving for community cohesion and social thoughtfulness, and a demand for compromise. Although they vary considerably, on-site projects in foreign countries similarly entail distance, bonding, individualization, and a certain degree of force. Leaving their personal environment to live abroad in itself changes the youngsters’ familiar structures, and cohabitation in a foreign environment offers new experiences, albeit in a different way than travel settings. Therefore, on-site projects can be identified by the characteristic features of their procedures after arrival in the foreign country, which emphasize constant, predictable structures that demand durability. Real-life situations serve as means for personal learning and relationship-building precisely because they offer a stable frame (Gahleitner, 2017, p. 35). The focus on learning to deal with recurring duties, taking care of oneself in the long term, and developing patterns to cope with daily life—instead of tackling ad hoc challenges as they arise from exceptional situations such as being on the move—positions an on-site project close to the reality of youngsters’ lives, even though it is situated far away from their usual circumstances.

Previous research reveals some aspects of support related to the procedural considerations of treatments abroad. Klawe and Bräuer (1998, p. 64) emphasize the importance of appropriate preparation steered by the youth welfare office in general and the provider in particular, comprising a careful and collaborative initiation of the decision to go abroad, as well as prudent planning of its implementation. Time pressures seem to be common during the decision-making and preparation phase of treatments abroad, mainly due to the severe conditions the youngsters face. Often, measures are implemented in reaction to a crisis situation, causing pressure and urgency.

Nevertheless, professionals are advised to plan carefully and consider their decisions (Wendelin, 2011, p. 269). In addition, according to Klein et al. (2011, p.

141), the duration of a treatment abroad is an important active factor besides the orientation to needs and the customization to individuals. With intensive measures, essential effects are achieved after just six months, and peak after 18 months. Thereafter no further increase is expected, and the one-to-one support is no longer of help. Unplanned or premature termination harbors risks for the young person’s further development. Intensive treatments usually take one or more years, depending on the conceptual considerations of the setting: Studies show that provisions abroad last 17 months on average, and while the numbers show a roughly even distribution of treatment durations, there are peaks in the numbers of treatments that last 12 to 18 months and 24 to 36 months (Macsenaere, 2016, p. 198; Macsenaere & Esser, 2012, p. 75). The results of Fischer and Ziegenspeck’s (2009, p. 209) quantitative evaluation corroborate this, especially with regard to treatments’ positive effect on relationship-building.

Leaving the personal environment creates spatial distance to endangering settings at home. A foreign language and culture are another quality of

“distance” that is not related to geographical aspects alone. While one might overcome spatial distance more or less easily, linguistic and cultural features of settings abroad create a much stronger barrier to escape, and offer a variety of learning impulses. Following Witte and Sander’s (2006b) idea of delegitimization, being strange impedes the acting out of problematic behavior and provides space to develop new patterns. Being strange puts the young person in a situation where his or her habits and strategies are no longer successful. Even though most projects retain German references and influences, the contrasting host culture impacts the participants and allows them to reflect critically on their own culture and patterns. Summing up, the primary function of confronting youngsters with a foreign culture is to shatter their old habits by putting them in strange circumstances. This situation creates a higher dependency on the key person, whom they need for orientation. In combination with the difficulty of leaving, distance from the home country thus supports relationship-building.

However, the decision in favor of a treatment abroad needs to be based on a thorough evaluation of the situation in order to avoid early terminations.

More than other support measures, projects abroad have defined schedules due to the increased organizational demands. Another essential success factor for measures abroad is the careful planning of aftercare. How to maintain the progress achieved abroad after the return to the home environment is the core question at stake in designing an aftercare setting (Klein et al., 2011, p.

127; Macsenaere & Esser, 2012, p. 94). This puts the emphasis on a careful planning phase to ensure that professional standards such as preparatory meetings, joint decision-making, and monitoring are considered (Klein et al., 2011, p. 121). It appears to be particularly important to take account of the previous experiences of the young person, who will have experienced many failed support attempts and dwindling possibilities within the support system.

The main goal of individual treatments is to go beyond the usual support options by adapting to the needs of the young person to a greater extent than other measures allow, in order to bring them back into the support system and stop the ongoing decline of their future prospects. Their initial situation is already problem-laden due to the burdened situation of their family of origin. Thereafter, the process of their development leads to increasing problems and reduces their opportunities to build promising future options.

Indeed, they show a tendency toward apathy and a “can’t be bothered”

attitude regarding their own future (Fischer & Ziegenspeck, 2009; Witte &

Sander, 2006a). Lacking the support and orientation of key persons, they become increasingly marginalized because they do not succeed in important matters such as achieving a high-school diploma, learning to establish and maintain relationships, or developing the stable self-confidence that will enable them to resolve problems and conflicts and to take healthy decisions for their own futures (Peters, 2009). Therefore, one-to-one intermediate treatments abroad have to assume that the target group has a strong need for support. The youngsters’ situation is characterized by numerous intense behavioral and attachment problems in reaction to the hostile and neglectful circumstances in their family of origin. With further experiences of relational breaks and neglect, these issues increase during their development. Growing distrust, and coping and defense strategies, complete the vicious circle and

might conclude in a youngster’s becoming a “hard-to-reach” case. This term denotes youngsters who are out of (parental) control and at risk because they behave inappropriately for their age, refuse to trust, pass through several support measures, and finally drop out of the system. One-to-one intermediate treatments abroad are often seen as a last resort or ultima ratio (Klawe & Bräuer, 1998, p. 23) to reach these young persons, who are trapped between regulated institutional settings and overweening freedom and self-dependence, and who shuttle between children’s support services, child and youth psychiatric services, and the justice system. Youth welfare offices mainly decide in favor of intensive treatments on account of particular behavioral patterns characterized by the rejection of attempts at support and intense behavioral disorders. Measures abroad are regarded as sufficiently flexible and closed to meet the educational needs that arise from the absence of guidance and trusting relationships, which are required to support a young person’s personal development (Klawe, 2010; Klawe & Bräuer, 1998, p. 78; Lorenz, H., 2008). However, intensive measures, especially in foreign countries, are controversial (Klein et al., 2011, p. 6; Schrapper, 2006). They are considered very expensive, and yet there is a lack of evidence of their effectiveness, as well as distrust of their quality (Gintzel & Schrapper, 1991, p.

35). Thus, youth welfare offices do not readily decide in favor of them. They do so only when a youngster appears to be caught in a downward spiral, resulting in their dropping out of the school and support systems and leading to further marginalization.