Het verschil tussen jeugdzorg en jeugdhulp
Nederlands Jeugdinstituut
Sinds de decentralisatie van alle zorg voor jeugd naar gemeenten hanteert het CBS het
begrip jeugdzorg als verzamelnaam voor jeugdhulp, jeugdbescherming en
jeugdreclassering. De term jeugdhulp omvat alle vormen van hulp en ondersteuning,
variërend van licht ambulant tot en met intensieve, zeer gespecialiseerde zorg in een al dan
niet gesloten setting.
De begrippen jeugdzorg en jeugdhulp worden momenteel vaak door elkaar gebruikt. Dit
komt doordat de term jeugdzorg voor de decentralisatie voorbehouden was aan
(gespecialiseerde) opvoedhulp en ondersteuning vanuit bureaus jeugdzorg en aanbieders
van jeugd- en opvoedhulp. Jeugdbescherming, jeugdreclassering, jeugd-ggz en jeugd-lvb
vielen niet onder het begrip en de term jeugdhulp was in die tijd niet gangbaar.
Door de nieuwe indeling zijn de registratiecijfers van voor en na de decentralisatie minder
goed te vergelijken. Het beroep op jeugd-ggz bijvoorbeeld werd voor de decentralisatie apart
bijgehouden, maar is nu een van de vormen van jeugdhulp die niet los geregistreerd
worden.
, The effectiveness of family group conferencing in youth care: A meta-analysis
S. Dijkstra, H. E. Creemers, J. J. Asscher, M. Dekovic, G. J. M. Stams
Family Group Conferencing (FGC) is a decision-making model that focuses on the family
and its social network, and which aims to gather all parties with an interest in the wellbeing
of a child and his or her family to make a family group plan that teaches and supports active
responsibility. It is based on the principle that the process of making decisions to keep
children safe and healthy benefits from being democratized. It focuses on the strengths and
resources of families that can be addressed to solve their problems and to take care of their
children. The assumption is that a plan developed and supported by the family and social
network of a family is more likely to be carried out, and more successful too, than a plan
developed by professionals.
In the last decades, the model of FGC has rapidly spread around the world. One reason for
this may be that in several countries it is a legal requirement that all families in youth care
should be offered the opportunity to make their own family group plan, for instance by
carrying out a FGC. However, despite its broad dissemination and implementation, the
question is whether FGC is widely used because of the popularity of the philosophy of self-
responsibility or because of its proven effectiveness.
In this study, a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of FGC. Based
on the primary aims of the FGC model, it was examined if the FGC leads to improved child
safety in terms of less child maltreatment and reduction of out-of-home placements and less
involvement of youth care compared to regular care.
The findings of the present study indicate that, overall, FGC does not outperform regular
care in terms of less child maltreatment, reduction of out-of-home placements and less
involvement of youth care. However, moderator-analyses indicate that in studies using a
retrospective design, FGC leads to less reports of child maltreatment and reduction of out-of-
home placements when compared to regular care, whereas this effect was not present in
studies using prospective research designs. Furthermore, the percentage of minorities
moderated the effect of FGC on out-of-home placements; FGC resulted in more and longer
out-of-home placements in minority groups.
An explanation for the fact that FGC leads to more out-of-home placements in minority
groups may be found in cultural differences. It has been argued that shame about problems
in the family context with minority groups decreases the quality of the conference and the
family group plan, resulting in more or longer out-of-home placements. FGC also resulted in
more and longer out-of-home placements in families with older children. Differences in the
nature of problems experienced by families with younger versus older children may explain
this result. Possibly, FGC is less effective than regular care in terms of reducing family
problems with adolescents behavioral problems. Moreover, during adolescence, children
become more autonomous and independent from their parents. Perhaps, a reduced
influence of parents and network during this developmental period makes it more difficult to
reduce adolescent behavior problems through FGC.
In sum, this study showed that there were no significant overall effects of FGC on child
maltreatment, out-of-home placements and involvement of youth care. Additionally, the FGC
model was less effective for minority groups and families with older children in reducing out-
of-home placements.
Nederlands Jeugdinstituut
Sinds de decentralisatie van alle zorg voor jeugd naar gemeenten hanteert het CBS het
begrip jeugdzorg als verzamelnaam voor jeugdhulp, jeugdbescherming en
jeugdreclassering. De term jeugdhulp omvat alle vormen van hulp en ondersteuning,
variërend van licht ambulant tot en met intensieve, zeer gespecialiseerde zorg in een al dan
niet gesloten setting.
De begrippen jeugdzorg en jeugdhulp worden momenteel vaak door elkaar gebruikt. Dit
komt doordat de term jeugdzorg voor de decentralisatie voorbehouden was aan
(gespecialiseerde) opvoedhulp en ondersteuning vanuit bureaus jeugdzorg en aanbieders
van jeugd- en opvoedhulp. Jeugdbescherming, jeugdreclassering, jeugd-ggz en jeugd-lvb
vielen niet onder het begrip en de term jeugdhulp was in die tijd niet gangbaar.
Door de nieuwe indeling zijn de registratiecijfers van voor en na de decentralisatie minder
goed te vergelijken. Het beroep op jeugd-ggz bijvoorbeeld werd voor de decentralisatie apart
bijgehouden, maar is nu een van de vormen van jeugdhulp die niet los geregistreerd
worden.
, The effectiveness of family group conferencing in youth care: A meta-analysis
S. Dijkstra, H. E. Creemers, J. J. Asscher, M. Dekovic, G. J. M. Stams
Family Group Conferencing (FGC) is a decision-making model that focuses on the family
and its social network, and which aims to gather all parties with an interest in the wellbeing
of a child and his or her family to make a family group plan that teaches and supports active
responsibility. It is based on the principle that the process of making decisions to keep
children safe and healthy benefits from being democratized. It focuses on the strengths and
resources of families that can be addressed to solve their problems and to take care of their
children. The assumption is that a plan developed and supported by the family and social
network of a family is more likely to be carried out, and more successful too, than a plan
developed by professionals.
In the last decades, the model of FGC has rapidly spread around the world. One reason for
this may be that in several countries it is a legal requirement that all families in youth care
should be offered the opportunity to make their own family group plan, for instance by
carrying out a FGC. However, despite its broad dissemination and implementation, the
question is whether FGC is widely used because of the popularity of the philosophy of self-
responsibility or because of its proven effectiveness.
In this study, a meta-analysis was conducted to determine the effectiveness of FGC. Based
on the primary aims of the FGC model, it was examined if the FGC leads to improved child
safety in terms of less child maltreatment and reduction of out-of-home placements and less
involvement of youth care compared to regular care.
The findings of the present study indicate that, overall, FGC does not outperform regular
care in terms of less child maltreatment, reduction of out-of-home placements and less
involvement of youth care. However, moderator-analyses indicate that in studies using a
retrospective design, FGC leads to less reports of child maltreatment and reduction of out-of-
home placements when compared to regular care, whereas this effect was not present in
studies using prospective research designs. Furthermore, the percentage of minorities
moderated the effect of FGC on out-of-home placements; FGC resulted in more and longer
out-of-home placements in minority groups.
An explanation for the fact that FGC leads to more out-of-home placements in minority
groups may be found in cultural differences. It has been argued that shame about problems
in the family context with minority groups decreases the quality of the conference and the
family group plan, resulting in more or longer out-of-home placements. FGC also resulted in
more and longer out-of-home placements in families with older children. Differences in the
nature of problems experienced by families with younger versus older children may explain
this result. Possibly, FGC is less effective than regular care in terms of reducing family
problems with adolescents behavioral problems. Moreover, during adolescence, children
become more autonomous and independent from their parents. Perhaps, a reduced
influence of parents and network during this developmental period makes it more difficult to
reduce adolescent behavior problems through FGC.
In sum, this study showed that there were no significant overall effects of FGC on child
maltreatment, out-of-home placements and involvement of youth care. Additionally, the FGC
model was less effective for minority groups and families with older children in reducing out-
of-home placements.
