Isolation i danske sikrede institutioner: En institutionel analyse af variationer, rammer og opgaveprofiler i anbringelser af børn og unge
Oversat titel
Isolation in Danish Secure Institutions: An Institutional Analysis of Variations, Institutional Frameworks, and Task Profiles in the Placement of Children and Young People
Forfatter
Olesen, Emilie Vendelin
Semester
4. semester
Uddannelse
Udgivelsesår
2026
Afleveret
2026-06-01
Resumé
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvorfor brugen af isolation (seclusion) varierer mellem danske sikrede døgninstitutioner for unge. Fokus er på, hvordan institutionernes rammer og opgaver – herunder anbringelsesgrundlag og pædagogiske profiler – hænger sammen med, hvor meget isolation de bruger. Undersøgelsen bygger på samlede tal fra Danske Regioners årsstatistikker for 2023 og 2024. Disse tal bliver suppleret med en kvalitativ gennemgang af, hvordan institutionerne selv beskriver deres pædagogiske retninger. Isolation behandles som et tiltag på institutionsniveau, og der sammenlignes på tværs af konkrete institutioner, institutionstyper og år. Teoretisk kombinerer afhandlingen tre perspektiver: importationsteori, deprivationsteori og begrebet institutionsklima. Importationsteori bruges til at forstå institutionernes opgaveprofiler – altså hvilke unge de har ansvar for, og med hvilke formål. Deprivationsteori retter opmærksomheden mod, hvordan de begrænsede og kontrollerede rammer i en sikret institution kan påvirke både unge og personale. Institutionsklima og pædagogiske profiler bruges til at fortolke forskelle mellem institutionerne og deres selvforståelse. Analysen viser, at isolation ikke er jævnt fordelt i feltet. Der er store forskelle mellem institutioner, og ingen enkelt faktor kan forklare variationen. Det tydeligste mønster handler om institutionstype: Særligt sikrede afdelinger har markant højere rater af isolation pr. ung end almindelige sikrede institutioner. Institutionstype fremstår derfor som det mest markante mønster i den samlede regressionsmodel. Dette resultat skal dog tolkes med forsigtighed. Modellen bygger på få observationer og skal ses som et eksplorativt fund snarere end et solidt statistisk bevis. Samtidig viser variationen inden for de enkelte institutionstyper, at det formelle sikkerhedsniveau i sig selv ikke er nok til at forklare forskellene. Anbringelsesgrundlagene giver et mere nuanceret billede af institutionernes opgaveprofiler. I dette datamateriale er de særligt sikrede afdelinger overvejende præget af sociale anbringelser frem for anbringelser med juridisk baggrund. Analysen viser også, at høje isolationsrater kan dække over forskellige mønstre: Nogle steder skyldes de høje tal, at få unge oplever isolation mange gange, mens det andre steder er en større andel af de anbragte unge, der isoleres. Skellet mellem intensitet (mange isolationsforløb for få unge) og bredde (isolation for mange unge) er en vigtig analytisk pointe. Anbringelsesgrundlag og pædagogiske profiler tilføjer en kontekstuel forståelse ved at vise forskelle i institutionernes opgaver og deres egne beskrivelser af pædagogiske tilgange. Afhandlingen konkluderer, at variationer i brugen af isolation bedst kan forstås som resultatet af et samspil mellem formelle sikkerhedsrammer, opgaveprofiler, institutionsvilkår og pædagogiske selvbeskrivelser. I stedet for at pege på én entydig årsag peger resultaterne på en flerniveauforklaring, der betoner institutionelle sammenhænge. Afhandlingen fremhæver behovet for fremtidig forskning, der kobler landsdækkende institutionsdata med kvalitative studier af registreringspraksis, personalets beslutningsprocesser og de unges egne erfaringer med isolation.
This thesis examines why the use of seclusion (placing young people alone and separated from others as a control measure) varies across Danish secure residential institutions for adolescents. It focuses on how institutional frameworks and task profiles – including reasons for placement and pedagogical profiles – are linked to differences in the use of seclusion. The study is based on aggregated data from the Danish Regions’ annual statistics for 2023 and 2024, combined with a qualitative review of how institutions publicly describe their pedagogical orientations. Seclusion is treated as an institutional-level measure, and comparisons are made across individual institutions, types of institutions, and years. The theoretical framework brings together three perspectives: importation theory, deprivation theory, and institutional climate. Importation theory is used to understand institutions’ task profiles – which young people they work with and for what purposes. Deprivation theory highlights how the restrictive and controlled conditions of secure institutions can affect both young people and staff. Institutional climate and pedagogical profiles are used to interpret differences between institutions and their self-understanding. The analysis shows that seclusion is unevenly distributed across the field. There are substantial differences between institutions, and no single factor can fully explain the variation. The clearest empirical pattern relates to institution type: specially secured units have significantly higher rates of seclusion per young person than standard secure institutions. Institution type therefore emerges as the strongest pattern in the combined regression model. However, this result must be interpreted with caution. The model is based on few observations and should be seen as exploratory rather than as a robust statistical estimate. At the same time, variation within each institution type shows that formal security level alone cannot account for the differences. The reasons for placement provide a more nuanced understanding of institutions’ task profiles. In this dataset, the specially secured units are predominantly characterized by social placements rather than placements based on legal decisions. The analysis also shows that high levels of seclusion can take different forms: in some institutions, a small number of young people account for many seclusion episodes, while in others a larger share of the residents experience seclusion. Distinguishing between intensity (many seclusions for few young people) and breadth (seclusion affecting many young people) is an important analytical contribution. Placement grounds and pedagogical profiles add contextual depth by revealing differences in institutional tasks and in how institutions describe their pedagogical approaches. The thesis concludes that variations in the use of seclusion are best understood as the outcome of an interplay between formal security frameworks, task profiles, institutional conditions, and pedagogical self-descriptions. Rather than providing a single causal explanation, the findings support a multi-level institutional interpretation. The thesis underlines the need for future research that links national institutional data with qualitative studies of registration practices, staff decision-making, and young people’s own experiences of seclusion.
[Dette resumé er omskrevet med hjælp fra AI baseret på projektets originale resumé]
Emneord