Search results

On 24 January 2020, France informed WHO of three cases of novel coronavirus, all of whom had travelled from Wuhan, China. These three cases were the first confirmed cases in Europe. By 13 March 2020, Europe had become the epicentre of the pandemic with more reported cases and deaths than the rest of the world combined, apart from the People’s Republic of China. Many European countries like Italy, France and Germany took drastic actions and subsequently announced a lockdown, while other countries like the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden were much more hesitant to introduce such far-reaching safety measures. This chapter provides a literature overview of how the variation in such measures in Europe has ultimately resulted in changes in daily activities and travel behaviour during the pandemic. It focusses on five main themes: (i) reduction in mobility and activities, (ii) spatial-temporal adjustments in out-of-home activities in which people still participated, (iii) modal adjustments especially among people who used to travel by public transport before the pandemic, (iv) new out-of-home activities including new outdoor activities and (v) digital adaptations as several out-of-home activities were replaced by digital activities, with special attention to the experience of teleworking.

This chapter offers a critical examination of children and young people’s participation in Australia’s official celebrations of the International Year of the Child (IYC) in 1979. While the global objectives of IYC strongly reflected ‘protectionist’ or ‘welfarist’ approaches to children’s rights, the chapter shows that, at a local level, the year was also shaped by alternative notions of children’s liberation that had emerged in the preceding decade and a new emphasis on children’s voices by policymakers, advocates and researchers. The chapter explores how these ideas were incorporated at a national level before closely examining three initiatives in New South Wales (NSW), the Australian state where the emphasis on children’s voices was taken furthest. The initiatives examined are: (1) the establishment of a Kids Council to provide input into the state’s response to IYC; (2) the organisation of a Youth Forum for high school students; and (3) the provision of funding for the ‘Speakout’ camp for children in out-of-home ‘care’. None of these initiatives approached the radical forms of democratic participation envisioned by liberationists. Nonetheless, they attest to the wider credence given to ideas of children’s self-determination in this period, well before the formalisation of children’s ‘participation’ rights in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989). The selected case studies also provide context to more recent debates over the inclusion of children and young people’s voices in decision-making processes, demonstrating how concerns around tokenism, exclusivity and adult-centricism manifested and were navigated at a time when the concepts of participation and voice remained relatively novel.

This chapter focuses on ways of giving voice to the survivors of institutional abuse and how their contribution can be capitalised in raising community awareness of this phenomenon. The collection of testimonies demonstrates that institutional abuse is a common and widespread phenomenon that in most cases remains unrevealed throughout the life course. The participatory research process we describe is part of an important social and clinical intervention developed in the framework of two projects. The chapter illustrates outputs and outcomes related to disclosure of institutional abuse and its long-term consequences, as well as the meaning and implications of collective trauma. Results confirm the need to promote the voice of survivors to build a new professional and community culture and sensitisation towards children's right to be heard as an essential instrument to prevent and detect institutional ill treatment. Participatory processes can overcome the resistance of individuals, professional communities and politicians to recognising the phenomenon, emphasising institutional responsibilities and the specific effects of a serious form of maltreatment that requires extraordinary and specific interventions in terms of intensity and flexibility. This chapter describes a fieldwork and research experience made possible thanks to a strong alliance with survivors who engaged in a process of reflection and theoretical elaboration that generated both social and clinical impacts.

In this chapter, I examine stories that foster care youth tell to legislatures, courts, policymakers, and the public to influence policy decisions. The stories told by these children are analogized to victim truth testimony, analyzed as a therapeutic, procedural, and developmental process, and examined as a catalyst for systemic accountability and change. Youth stories take different forms and appear in different media: testimony in legislatures, courts, research surveys or studies; opinion editorials and interviews in newspapers or blog posts; digital stories on YouTube; and artistic expression. Lawyers often serve as conduits for youth storytelling, translating their clients’ stories to the public. Organized advocacy by youth also informs and animates policy development. One recent example fosters youth organizing to promote “normalcy” in child welfare practices in Florida, and in related federal legislation.

Children with disabilities that exhibit maladaptive behaviors as a result of abuse and neglect require consideration of a more comprehensive, alternative method of assessment to determine the source and patterns of the behaviors. The need exists to go beyond an assessment of the current level of intellectual functioning, individual academic achievement, and functional behavior to a more ethological approach that considers the dynamics in the home and social settings that influence development. The careful analysis of the child’s social and academic records; patterns and frequency of movement for those in out-of-home placements; interviews and records of primary care givers; along with the intellectual and academic assessments enables special educators, social workers, school staff, and health care professionals to more effectively address the individual needs of the child. This paper discusses assessment methods that utilize a more comprehensive approach to determine the factors that lead to high levels of maladaptive behavior in special needs children. Additionally, alternative intervention strategies are recommended that include establishing the child’s perceived primary care giver with the most stable environment to facilitate the child’s development of more appropriate behaviors.