Waiting for what?

In March 2023, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) strongly criticized Sweden regarding the youth homes run by the National Board of Institutional Care (SiS). Among other things, the Committee emphasized the importance of strengthening the rule of law in all SiS's operations.1 In the same year, the Swedish Institute for Human Rights sent a letter to SiS headquarters with questions about how the agency ensures respect for human rights in its operations. We also asked how SiS follows up on the recommendations made by the UN monitoring committees.2

The response revealed, among other things, that children and young people who are compulsorily cared for at SiS youth homes under the Swedish Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act (SFS 1990:52) (LVU) may remain deprived of their liberty long after the need for this form of institutional care has ceased.

Decisions on compulsory care under the LVU can be made if, due to circumstances in the home or the young person's behaviour, there is a significant risk that the young person's health or development will be harmed. Most children and young people who are taken into care under the LVU are cared for in open forms, but around a thousand are placed in SiS youth homes each year.

So my head was spinning the whole time. I didn't know what was going to happen, how long it would last... I had so many thoughts and questions... in the end, I didn't know where to go. And then I did what I always do, just shut down, that's what has worked for me.

Girl who had been placed in an emergency ward of a state youth home for six months without a treatment plan.

You get maybe two hours of mobile phone time in the evening, everything is fixed to the wall, 70 kg chairs, not comfortable at all, and there are cameras, which are there for both the staff and our sake. Yes, it's like... everything is locked, so you can only be in places with staff under constant supervision.

Girl placed in a state youth home

Being cared for in a locked ward at a SiS youth home is the most intrusive measure in social child and youth care. From a legal certainty perspective, it is essential that as soon as a child's need for secure care ceases, they should have access to care in open settings. The fact that this does not always happen has been noted by the Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO), the National Audit Office (Riksrevisionen) and the Swedish Agency for Financial and Public Management (Statskontoret).3

Against this background, we conducted a study in 2024–2025 on deprivation of liberty under LVU at SiS youth homes.

In the study, we collected data from SiS and analyzed reports and reviews from other actors. We also interviewed children and young people with experience of remaining placed in at SiS youth homes long after their need for this care had ceased, staff at SiS youth homes, and social workers.

The report contains a legal assessment that clarifies the requirements of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child regarding the deprivation of liberty of children and young people. The report also contains an analysis of the shortcomings in the protection of human rights that we have identified in the interview material and in reports from other actors.

The ward is like a real prison. The bars, the feeling of living here, the rules and everything.

Boy placed in a state youth home

They say it's not punishment, but it's all about punishments and rewards. It's like being trained with candy like a dog.

Girl who had been placed in a state youth home

Our review shows that children and young people are arbitrarily deprived of their liberty at SiS youth homes. A large number of children and young people remain locked up after the homes have assessed them as ready to leave locked care. According to data from SiS, the proportion of children who no longer need locked care but are waiting to leave the youth homes is between 8 and 16 percent of the total number of children placed there.4

The review shows that the system for placement in SiS youth homes has major shortcomings in terms of legal certainty. There are no specific legal requirements for placement in SiS youth homes. Social welfare committees and administrative courts therefore make different assessments in their placement decisions. This in turn leads to SiS youth homes and social welfare committees making different assessments of when someone should leave SiS. The best interests of the child should be decisive in decisions under LVU. Despite this requirement, social welfare committees' assessments of the best interests of the child in SiS placements are inadequate.

Being arbitrarily kept in locked residential care has serious consequences for children and young people. Long periods of placement in locked environments are very harmful to children's health and development in the short and long term.5 The effects of being deprived of liberty are exacerbated when there is no clear time limit and especially if it is perceived that there are no clear reasons for the deprivation of liberty.6 The children and young people we have met have received very limited and sometimes inaccurate information about their situation and the reasons for the decision. They have therefore not had the opportunity to influence their care. Arbitrary deprivation of liberty makes it more difficult for children to reintegrate into society after their placement at SiS.

The report emphasizes the need to strengthen children's right to redress when they have been arbitrarily deprived of their liberty at SiS youth homes. The overall picture is that children and young people in care today have limited opportunities to complain about decisions during their care, both formally and in practice. There is therefore a need for an independent complaints system that is child-friendly and accessible to the target group.

Our recommendations in brief

The Institute for Human Rights makes the following recommendations to the parliament (Riksdag) and government:

1. Prevent arbitrary deprivation of liberty at SiS youth homes.
   
2. Investigate time-limited placements at SiS.
   
3. Task the Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO) with reviewing interventions after SiS placement.
   
4. Strengthen the possibility of redress.