“Sadly, we just let it go, it is so normalized”: Staff descriptions of violence among children within organized leisure

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate how staff describe violence among children within organized leisure in Sweden, named school-age EduCare. The study is based on ten semi-structured interviews with staff, and analyzed with theoretical concepts of Lefebvre’s space theory, and Galtung’s theory of violence. The results reveal three types of violence—quarrel for fun, violations, and physical violence—and three ways of reacting and managing it—stress and resignation, material adaption, and adaption through guarding. In conclusion, this study shows an everyday life filled with violent spaces, but limited resources for staff to cope with violence and create safe spaces for children and staff. The study pinpoints the complexity in everyday life where violence in different ways occurs between children, and staff are unable to manage this in an appropriate way. Instead, staff adjust to time and place, where spaces of violence between children are normalized.

Keywords:

• Organized leisure
• school-age EduCare
• violence
• space
• school staff adaption

Introduction

This study focuses on violence in children’s organized leisure activities. Young people’s well-being and meaningful leisure, as well as learning and development, are of great interest to many societies (UNESCO, 2022). Thus, various efforts have been made to support and guide young people and prevent negative development for both the individual and society (e.g., preventive efforts against drug use, violence, and crime) (Tidmarsh, Thompson, et al., 2022). International studies on violence and drug prevention efforts have not only shown the need for specific programs to strengthen children’s life skills, but also that the successful implementation of such programs requires professional leadership, suitable premises, and a meaningful structure that is not like that in schools, as well as financial resources (Tidmarsh, Thompson,et al., 2022).

In Sweden, where this study was conducted, there is a tradition of combining care and education, EduCare, within what is known as the Nordic model, which is based on joint efforts and intentions for increased welfare from several institutions (Dahl & Hansen, 2021; Klerfelt et al., 2020). The Swedish welfare society was created with common starting points for political decisions for family policy, education, and social equality and health during the 1950s. However, during the 1960s, questions about society’s responsibility for childcare grew stronger (Andersson, 2020). The Swedish School-Age EduCare (SAEC) centers are part of this tradition and have a broad mission as social institutions to contribute to well-being and positive development of children and young people (Gustafsson-Nyckel, 2020). Today, 83 percent of all Swedish children aged 6–9 attend SAEC centers (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2020), and they do not target any particular families or groups in society but are available to all families where parents work or study. Nevertheless, the SAEC center is part of the primary school and is integrated with it, which to some extent implies shared premises and staff. These activities are regulated in a national curriculum with a common mission of education and learning, but the SAEC center also has a specific mission of contributing to meaningfulness and recreation (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2022).

Extended education is a collective term for various activities that try to work with school-age children’s organized leisure worldwide (Bae, 2020). In this context, Swedish SAEC centers are described as unique with their mission of combining education and care in an activity addressing almost all of society’s children (Klerfelt et al., 2020). Other countries’ organization of children’s and young people’s organized leisure and education are often separate sectors, where, for example, extracurricular activities are aimed at strengthening school pupils’ school results by involving participation in various activities outside the framework of the school day, or after-school programs that target special groups in society requiring the support of a more social nature (Gottfredson et al., 2010; Gullotta, 2015). Through the EduCare tradition, Swedish SAEC centers have both missions under one roof (Rohlin, 2001).

For a long time, Swedish SAEC centers, together with preschools and primary schools, have been stable and safe social institutions for children and families with extensive preventive work in collaboration with social services and the police, community life, and so on (Dahl & Hansen, 2021). The SAEC center is seen as a unique arena to work with children’s interactions and relationships, with the support of university-trained pedagogs (Hjalmarsson & Odenbring, 2020, 2023). Education for school children has been available to everyone who needs it. Societal changes and educational reforms have partially changed the conditions for welfare institutions, and the entire Nordic welfare system is under pressure (Dahl & Hansen, 2021). Swedish studies on SAEC centers today show major shortcomings, and instead of preventive work, the opportunities for the staff to contribute to positive development for children and families are decreasing. Reports and studies show difficulties for SAEC centers in fulfilling their mission (Lager, 2020; Swedish Government Official Reports [SOU], 2020). For example, Lago and Elvstrand (2019) drew attention through their research to the fact that children’s vulnerability in SAEC centers must be addressed. Borg (2023) found from the children’s perspectives, everyday life in SAEC institutions contained violence among them, and staff were not always present to see, hear, and detect it.

Therefore, we conducted an in-depth study in one specific SAEC center, interviewing the staff, to identify how violence is created in a perspective where time, space, and relationships meet from their viewpoint (Lefebvre, 1991). One central aspect in that perspective is the relationships between children, children and adults, and adults in relation to more structural conditions such as time and space. By using Lefebvre’s (1991) concept of space together with Galtung’s (1990) perspective on violence, we want to contribute by examining how violent situations are created by direct, structural, and cultural factors. The study includes interviews with staff (10) in one SAEC in a small Swedish community among children aged 6–11 years. We aimed to explore violence in a SAEC center from the staff’s perspective. The research questions were the following:

How do the staff describe violence in SAEC centers in respect to time and space?

How do the staff manage violence in everyday practice in respect to time and space?

Literature review

Violence as peer victimization and bullying focusing on adolescents is a well researched area. Notable examples include Forsberg and Thornberg (2016) who interviewed children aged 10–13 years about bullying and showed that children exposed to bullying were held responsible for it due to individual characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, disabilities, and sexual orientation. Individual characteristics have been investigated in several studies on bullying and peer victimization, for example, Ashrafi et al. (2020) showed that young children who were overweight, were at a higher risk of being bullied. Moffat et al. (2019) found that girls aged 9–12 in Australia, with disabilities, experienced covert bullying at a higher level than girls without disabilities. Tremblay-Perreault and Hébert (2020) found that victims of child sexual abuse were targeted for peer victimization, to a far greater extent than children who were not.

Individual characteristics and risk in relation to children’s everyday life have, with reference to above, been researched, but few studies have focused on violence in after-school programs (ASP). Langager and Spencer-Cavaliere (2015) interviewed children participating in ASP aged 9–12 years old living with low socioeconomic status. They showed negative aspects of peer relations in ASP such as bullying, spreading rumors, fighting, and teasing. By contrast, there are studies of ASP that focus on pro-social work to prevent violence (Gottfredson et al., 2010; Gullotta, 2015). Traditionally Swedish SAEC has been an arena to nurture children and support their well-being in everyday life (Gustafsson-Nyckel, 2020). This is confirmed by Hjalmarsson and Odenbring (2020), who analyzed written reflections from practitioners, and claim that Swedish SAEC plays an important role in compensating for unequal childhoods. They also showed (Hjalmarsson & Odenbring, 2023) in a study of peer victimization among pupils, that teachers in SAEC hold a quite unique professional position, due to their opportunities to work with pupils in various contexts during the day and their collaborations with other staff within the school. Violent but subtle actions hold a risk of being considered as jokes and making fun (Hjalmarsson & Odenbring, 2023).

Compensating for unfair childhoods can also stretch out to community-based leisure activities, exemplified by Colistra et al. (2019), who explored factors contributing to relationship building in a community center. Shared experiences at the community center created a sense of belonging, and parents described their children as benefiting from the relationships they established with after-school teachers. The programs at the community center seemed to bring people together and create relationships that managers and staff of community centers support and maintain.

The quality of the center can be an important aspect of preventing violence. Research conducted to identify quality aspects in Swedish SAEC emphasizes teacher-trained staff working in teams with a relational approach, time allowed to plan and prepare work, rooms, and materials for SAEC work as aspects enhancing quality (Lager, 2020). However, SAEC in Sweden is lacking in both equivalence and quality (Andishmand, 2017; Lager, 2020) and is facing large challenges regarding structural quality aspects such as large child groups and unsuitable rooms.

Studies by Lago and Elvstrand (2019) and Ljusberg (2018) indicated that social exclusion, conflicts, and fights among children in Swedish SAEC are a part of children’s everyday life.

The importance of creating possibilities for staff to work with relations has also been confirmed by research exploring outcomes and programs directed to preschool children, school children, and young people (Cumming et al., 2017; Mihalic et al., 2008; Tidmarsh, Thompson, et al., 2022; Tidmarsh, Whiting, 2022; Wenz-Gross & Upshur, 2012). These studies are evaluating programs with a focus on a range of topics (homelessness, drug prevention, positive youth development, social skills), but still, they all point to the importance of creating possibilities for staff to support children and young people.

With this knowledge, organized leisure as SAEC-centers holds the potential to contribute to the improvement of children’s life situation and future possibilities in society. SAEC teachers’ unique position makes it interesting to focus on their descriptions of violence in that environment. Consequently, we intend to study violence among children in SAEC from a staff perspective, applying the theoretical concepts of space, place, and violence.

Space, place, and violence

In this article children’s social reality are explored through the “eyes and thoughts” of staff, focusing on children’s spaces in everyday life and the occurrence of violence. In attempting to understand the complex and specific contexts of which children are a part during their time in SAEC, concepts such as space, place, relations, materiality, and the body (Lefebvre, 1991), are used.

According to Lefebvre (1991), every place has its own history and generates a specific social reality, and we understand our everyday life and daily actions by our notions of how social relations are structured within the place in which we find ourselves. Social relations are one part of deciding how a room is ordered. This is relevant in relation to children in SAEC, in a context where staff and children together create their everyday life. Lefebvre (1991) described social space as comprising physical, social, and mental dimensions. These dimensions are continually changing and transforming by interactions between different spatial dimensions. For staff and children, this is an ongoing relational work, sometimes resulting in better and other times worse situations. Everyday life was central for Lefebvre; all the different environments, places, and rooms in which children meet during their time in SAEC will therefore be a part of creating social relations.

Everyday life and social relations sometimes involve violence, and aspects of violence such as peer victimization, bullying, precariousness, and vulnerability, which can be discussed by using Galtung’s (1990) theoretical concepts: direct, structural, and cultural violence. Direct violence is the action of violence on one or several individuals, for example physical violence or violations. Structural violence is about how society is organized and creates unequal life conditions for people in society and educational institutions. Cultural violence relates to symbolic spheres of our existence, such as ideology, religion, or language. It includes a cultural belief which makes both direct violence and structural violence seem right. In this way, cultural violence is concealed to those experiencing it making it appear normal within the context. These concepts of violence offer guidance in identifying patterns of violence, starting with the local context where it occurs. Our understanding of violence among children involves a connection to overarching structures surrounding people in society. Violence among children cannot, according to Galtung, be understood as a one-way action between, in this case, children. Direct violence is connected to both structural and cultural violence, which justify each other. Cultural violence is concealed to people within a specific context who are part of a culture, which can lead to higher tolerance for violence. Galtung and Fischer (2013) noted that a structure of violence leaves not only marks on the physical body but also the mind and spirit. Cremin and Guilherme (2016) argue that Galtung’s theoretical work on violence holds great potential for understanding violence in schools. “Schools and education systems can be powerful and efficient instruments of violence, which leaves real questions about how this plays out in real-life settings within schools” (p. 1126).

With reference to the theoretical points of departure outlined above, different forms of violence interact and presuppose each other, as does space. In other words, violence occurs in spaces of everyday life. Space is filled with social relations and violence occurs where created space allows it. By interviewing the staff, we explored their perspectives of violence in respect of time and space, which will be described in the following.

Method

This study draws upon ten interviews with staff working in various ways with children at an SAEC center in rural Sweden. Rural Sweden was chosen because previous research is to a greater extent centered in urban areas (Beach & Öhrn, 1970; Öhrn & Weiner, 2017). Rural Sweden differs from urban Sweden. Sweden is a small country with varying geography. It ranges from urban areas with large cities to rural areas with small societies. SAEC institutions located in rural areas face challenges, such as difficulties in recruiting university-trained staff. Compared to urban areas, children in rural areas attend SAEC to a lower degree (Swedish Government Official Reports [SOU], 2020). In this study, only one of the ten participants was trained to work in SAEC. This individual was often used to replace teachers’ work during school days, resulting in even less time for planning and leading work in SAEC. The school is located in a small community facing economic challenges with consequences such as downsizing the staff working in SAEC.

Although the project aimed to research violence among children, ethical considerations are a central part of the research process. This study, as part of an ongoing PhD student project, has been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (AD2021-1057). After approval was granted, contact was initiated with the principal of the Forest School who informed all staff at SAEC and the school about the study and invited all those with a connection to SAEC (10) to participate in interviews to which all ten individuals agreed. See Appendix for details of the participants.

All ten participants were informed both verbally and in writing, on several occasions. They were given the opportunity to ask questions before, during, and after the interview. Written consent was collected from all participants and the names of persons and places have been replaced with fictious names.

All interviews were conducted during the autumn and winter of 2021 by one of the authors. The interviews were semi-structured (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009), and an interview guide was used, which had an overarching structure of background, descriptions of SAEC, staff’s ways of talking about and categorizing precariousness, and how they handle precarious situations among the children. Some of the questions were: are there forms of precariousness that you see more of among the children? How does this get expressed? When different forms of precariousness occur, how does it occur? What are your experiences with these types of situations? How are these types of situations detected?

All interviews were performed individually in the school buildings during the day. The interviewees were given the opportunity to select where and when they would like to be interviewed. The interviews lasted between 20 and 80 minutes and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Differences in the interview times were due to participants availability to attend. Nine of the interviewed persons were interviewed once. One of the individuals was interviewed three times because circumstances made it impossible to complete the interview in one session. It was important to follow up on this person’s reflections, because of the key position she holds as the only person in staff with a teacher training specialized in SAEC.

This study is part of an ethnographic study focusing on violence among children in SAEC centers. Fieldwork was performed during autumn and winter 2021, meaning that the lead author spent time in SAEC several days per week, observing and talking to both staff and children. During this period, interviews were conducted and by the time the interviews were done, the lead author and the participants spent so much time together that they got to know each other. This facilitated the interview and made it possible to ask participants to elaborate on their experiences. This also means that the two authors had different positions in the work. The lead author was part of everyday life in SAEC who followed the children and led the analysis. The second author was a coworker on the outside: a “critical friend” (Smith & McGannon, 2018) to discuss interpretations and challenge them, who developed the analysis by providing critical feedback.

Analysis

During the analysis, Braun and Clarke (2006, 2019) reflexive thematic analysis were used as a guide. Both authors worked with the material by reading it several times, commenting, and reflecting first individually, and then together. The sorting and coding of the material were compared and discussed by the authors in a parallel process. Braun and Clarkes’ (2006) six-phase model guided the authors in constructing themes. In reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019), the researcher reflects on the philosophical and theoretical perspectives that inform the analysis. This means that both researchers took their starting point from the research questions, interviews, and theoretical perspectives to enhance the trustworthiness as critical friends in the analysis process. Theoretical perspectives with a focus on defining and analyzing violence in relation to space and place were central to the process of coding and determining themes. In this way, the analysis was constructed in an abductive way. The authors constructed themes that contained staff descriptions on types of violence that occurred among the children, and themes that contained descriptions on how staff reacted and adapted to situations of violence among children.

Two umbrella themes were constructed, with three subthemes each: Staff describe violence in SAEC: quarrel for fun, violations, physical violence

Staff managing violence: stress and resignation, material adaption, adaption through guarding

The themes are presented in the following section.

Results

Staff describe violence in SAEC

From the staff’s descriptions, we identified three themes of violence among children. These are quarrel for fun, violations, and physical violence.

Quarrel for fun

When interviewing staff about violence among children a tension is shown between the occurrence of children arguing for fun, and a school policy arguing for non-tolerance. Despite this policy, this kind of violence is often observed by staff:

There has been much arguing and many fights that have begun with quarrel for fun. They start wrestling with each other for fun on the grass, then they are boxing, and they think it is fun until it hurts for the first time. Stuff like that, a lot starts with quarrel for fun. So, we had a non-tolerance against it for a while here. You were not allowed to do kicks in the air against each other, you were not allowed to push, not allowed to do wrestling and stuff like that. We feel now that we have lost it again, it is back, they can stand in the line to the canteen and just do a karate kick in someone’s back, just because they can, without thinking that ahh, maybe that was not very nice for the one that got kicked. (Linda)

In this excerpt, Linda is talking of this quarrel for fun, and mentions the school’s non-tolerance policy. In Linda’s example, we can assume that this is taking place outside as she refers to the grass. This kind of violence seems to need space for wrestling and boxing and is constructed in a space where children’s play interacts with waiting time and unstructured places. This is also visible when Linda refers to specific situations where the children are supposed to stand in line and wait. Time and place for quarrel for fun appear to be more frequent in spaces where children are waiting and not occupied with a specific task, for example, during breaks. Laura also reflects upon this non-tolerance policy and quarrel for fun:

From the start, when they begin on break to wrestle, although you can see they are having a fun time wrestling, it always leads to violations where someone feels exposed, disadvantaged, or upset. There is non-tolerance for that…And we have sent letters to parents about this, but perhaps we must update the parents by explaining again, because they (the children) cannot handle this. (Laura)

Even Laura is referring to situations outside when she mentions breaks. Like Linda, Laura describes how these situations start as fun, but end up in children feeling “exposed, disadvantaged, or upset.” She describes spaces where children’s relations, time structure, and violence intertwine to create violent situations for children. According to Linda and Laura the children cannot deal with these situations and therefore they must be stopped. Both refer to the nonviolence policy, which appears to have no impact.

Violations

The staff describe children using words that are hard and violent and observe different kinds of violations among children. They reflect upon how the violations effect everyday life and the environment for children and staff. John, who works with children in special needs during schooltime and in SAEC, before and after school, describes:

Yes, one of the children in SAEC (and he has said it before), called a girl a whore, because he was so irritated, so I had to take it up with him directly that this is not acceptable. They know so many words. It is what it is. I was shocked when I got here, I have worked at schools before, but then was away from school institutions for 17 years until I came here and heard all these ugly words in the schoolyard. What has happened to society? (John)

John asks what has happened to society with children using such harsh language, which was also a question shared by (other) interviewed staff. They reflect upon relations between the children and those between children and adults and how these spaces are constructed throughout the day. Borders in space seems to have been relocated over time and violations are now finding space that were not previously available. John describes this as a shift in society, against a harsher societal climate. The staff are concerned about the hard vocabulary between children and several of them did not even want to mention these violations by name. After being asked for specific words, Ann gives several examples of violations among children: “there was a lot of ‘go fuck your mum’, which was very popular for a while… idiot… gay… fucking pussy… n-word” (Ann).

Violations such as those Ann describes are being constructed in spaces where whole classes are being exposed. These spaces intertwine violence and relations in a group of children which in turn creates vulnerable situations not only for those being directly exposed to violations but also those exposed indirectly by witnessing them. The violations Ann mentions point directly to another child, but staff also talk of violations related to different family situations and patronizing comments. Robbie describes violations that are directed to children in different ways:

Well, it is words such as: gay, go fuck your mum, man boobs, tramp, n-word, imbecile; there are also statements such as “your mum is poor,” “you always wear the same clothes,” “your mum cannot afford to buy new clothes”; those are the sort of things that are coming out. (Robbie)

Robbie’s descriptions show a broad spectrum of words pointing at precarious situations in forms of different economic possibilities within families and individual characteristics. These violations are used in various places such as the classroom, at SAEC, the schoolyard, canteen, and so on. Spaces for violations are constructed in places and relations that create a collective experience of a joint unsafe space. Staff are concerned about the consequences of experiencing violations. Ann describes this and talks about the difficulty of detecting violations:

[It happens] in class too, so it is not only on breaks but everywhere. You have a hard time if you are trying to avoid a fight in time, but it is even harder to stop the words that are coming out of their mouths, and as I said, much more happens that we do not notice. (Ann)

What Ann expresses, exemplifies the joint space of violations, where everyone in the room experiences violations, and Ann in this example finds it challenging to cope with this situation. Within this space to which Ann refers, time and place together create a difficult situation for her. She pinpoints the difference between spaces of violations or physical violence and the impossible task of being able to act on violations in time.

Violations seem to be a type of violence that occur everywhere in space and time during the children’s day. Staff have divulged the words that children use toward each other and staff. These words are derogatory, discriminatory, and evil and point out differences between people regarding gender, ethnicity, and cognitive ability. The theme quarrel for fun mostly referred to places outside when no particular activity planned by teachers was happening. In contrast this theme of violations seems to take place everywhere at any time of the day and is perceived as both shocking and normalized by staff.

Physical violence

The interviews also revealed information of physical violence. Some of the situations told by staff are more severe than others. One thing that several of the interviewees described is that serious situations occur quite often. John, was asked for his views on violence among the children:

A lot, I think. There are a lot of brawls, very much in SAEC too, but I think that you have to keep in mind that if they have had a whole day in school, some of the children are really tired, and if someone has had a bad day it can be just a little thing that can happen in a bang [an instant] as soon as someone says or does something…. There are many… brawls and fights. (John)

John refers to spaces of physical violence that appear when children arrive at SAEC and spend their afternoon there. He mentions the time of the day as an influencing factor, that is, the children are tired when they arrive there. The school day is tiring for some of the children and at SAEC the risk of violence seems to increase. John points at spaces where time interacts with relations and violence can occur quickly, “in a bang,” and in relation to another person who express something that triggers the tired body and mind. Lisa, a substitute teacher working at SAEC and in school, describes physical violence as something that happens quite often:

Sadly, violence happens here at school, there are fights, or someone throws [something], I have experienced someone throwing a [pair of] scissor[s] at another and kicking someone in the back, and stuff like that…Sadly you have to stop fights almost every day, at least every week…In my opinion, it has escalated a bit over the years I have been here. If you look back, maybe four or five years, of course there was violence, but not in the same way. (Lisa)

Lisa talks about fights and how dangerous objects are thrown at other people and children kicking each other. This physical type of violence is, according to Lisa, ongoing on a daily or weekly basis and has escalated over the years. This shows how violent spaces are constructed by time and place and create a precarious situation for children. Over time, spaces of violence have not only increased in number according to Lisa, they are also expressed in a surprising fast way. Olga, another substitute teacher, talks about the speed in actions:

It happens very quickly, hitting someone… it is like everyday life for some. As soon as someone disagreed with something, it is this (showing her fist) … the fist or a kick, yes. You only feel how lucky it is that you are around, but sometimes you are not, when you are out on breaks guarding, it can happen, they use sticks and stuff they find in the woods and that can make the situation crazy. (Olga)

Olgás expressions show that violent spaces can arise and happen very fast. She refers to places as the woods and the surrounding areas where children have access, making it difficult for staff to supervise. This example demonstrates a violent space constructed when staff are not necessarily present to supervise the children who are left to entertain themselves in their own free time. Olga describes how she is not always able to be around when physical fights arise, and serious situations can happen; as example children can find sticks that can be used as weapons in fights.

Violence among children seems to be a part of everyday life according to staff, both physical violence and violations. The descriptions also show how these three types of violence are interlinked and how quarrel for fun can develop into physical violence and violations can start fights that escalate in severity. The staff refers to changes in society and how these types of violent situations are worsening. Although they all seem to be standing on the side witnessing what is happening, without resources or strategies to make it stop. This makes it urgent to deepen the analysis of how staff describe their managing of violent spaces.

Staff managing violence

This section present results regarding staff’s descriptions of managing violence in everyday life. The analysis shows how staff react and adapt to time and space in three ways, described in the following themes: stress and resignation, material adaption, adaption through guarding.

Stress and resignation

The staff often describe themselves as being stressed, overcome with a feeling of resignation, and exhausted in dealing with violence. For example, staff must choose between not starting a lesson until they have taken charge of the situation or ignoring the violence and starting the lesson on time. They point at structural conditions with a lack of time to deal with violence, in combination with a lack of energy:

Well, we handle situations, but it depends on the situation you are in. If you are going to class to start a lesson, then you say the opposite instead, because you are so tired of taking these situations with you into the classroom. So, the teacher says, “you must talk to the guard”… It is a feeling of never being enough. (Ann)

Ann describes the uncomfortable situation of trying to manage the impossible; you cannot be present and do two things at the same time. Ann describes the exhausted body and mind, and how it affects them in their decisions, leaving them with a feeling of inadequacy. We interpret this as an avoidance to do the right thing because they are experiencing space as draining. Several of the interviewees describe this tiredness and reflect on colleagues who look tired too. They also describe how they try to control violence by “shaking them off” (meaning, trying to think of something else). The violent spaces occur so often that they are inured and try to eliminate these violent spaces by diminishing and ignoring them. By adapting to space, this is a way of managing a stressful and painful situation where they would like to do much more than space allows. John reflects upon this:

It gets more normalized now when there are so many that are using words; there are so many that are disrespectful. They also act together; several children act collectively and are disrespectful to one person…I think we are too bad at it ourselves, sadly we just let it go… it is so normalized. (John)

John, in this example, describes his exhaustion caused by the violence in a way that normalizes it. Staff also normalize violence by processing it as something that children are expected to sort out for themselves. In the violent spaces we found in our analysis, individual children are held responsible for the violence. Ann talks about children getting ready for adult life by taking responsibility: “Everything is a preparation for being adult, so it is just to swallow it, but it is so tiring” (Ann).

Ann expresses a way of talking about children that shifts responsibility from adult to child. Preparation for adulthood is described as a difficult experience, and that children need to learn that life is hard. We interpret this as a way of trying to cope with a strained space where staff are unable to do sufficient good work. From this interpretation, we see how violence becomes legitimized and normalized in children’s everyday lives. Staff do not have the necessary tools or training to act in situations of violence, instead, they avoid controlling the situation by telling the children to talk to another adult. This method of adapting to space seems to decrease new ways of managing violence; it seems impossible for staff to deal with this in another way.

Material adaption

By describing how they adjust to place and space, staff reveal a situation where they make decisions based on available space. The setting under study is a main building with several small rooms within. Material adjustment is described as not being able to use available rooms because there are insufficient staff present. This space is described as crowded and making surveillance of all the children problematic. There is often a high sound level because children are shouting to each other while staff are harrying about keeping the level down. Linda describes this in relation to the canteen:

The canteen is not very big, and the sound levels are so high that I can see the children sitting and almost [holding her hand against her ears], and I feel it myself also. I cannot handle such a level of sound, and the children are subjected to this day in and day out. We have children arriving in this environment at six in the morning and leaving at six in the evening. If we could, we would give them a book and let them sit in another room where it is calmer. We do not have that opportunity here. So, it has a serious impact. (Linda)

What Linda describe is staffs’ adaption to place and space in a way that limits children in their everyday life. Linda points out that the children cannot choose a calm room, place, or space. This is closely associated with other limitations regarding available rooms. SAEC have access to the gym which, according to staff, is somewhere the children appreciate and enjoy, and a space that staff describe contains less triggers for conflicts and violence. However, depending on available resources in both staff and rooms, sometimes there is not enough staff to be able to use the gym. Neither is there the chance to use available rooms in another building.

Adaption through guarding

Being a small school with few persons working there promotes a close relationship between members of staff. On one hand, they describe themselves as knowing each other well and how easy it is to contact each other, while on the other, they describe the situation as constrained, with lack of time for joint planning and managing situations of violence. Their way of managing this is to talk to each other where opportunity presents itself. This could be during school breaks (when guarding at the same time), in the corridor (on their way to different activities), or on their own break (in the staff room). Staff do not perceive any of these methods of treating situations of violence among children as comfortable:

You mediate at break and then you hope that it will pass, because you do not have the time to sit down…We do not have the time, we are assistants, we go directly from school to SAEC. We never have the opportunity to check up on things with the teachers, to see if something happened during the day. For example, today when I have gymnastics lessons, if something has happened with students who are coming to SAEC, I do not know if they are upset when they arrive at SAEC as I have not spoken to any other teacher before they come to SAEC. Put simply, there is a lack of resources. (John)

John tells that there is no time in the daily schedule for staff to talk to each other, consequently instances of violence amongst the children risk going unseen or uncommunicated. To create safe spaces for children they need to plan and prepare their work, but several of the interviewees point out the difficulty with lack of resources. There have been several staff reductions over the last years and staff find this very troublesome. The consequences are never having time to stop and think about what they are doing.

Relations between staff and children are also affected by this lack of resources and there is no space for establishing and developing relations to the children. Robbie reflects upon everyday life and consequences during breaks:

Well, you are having a hard time trying to get your own break, it feels like there is more stress in our staff team, it keeps increasing, and what you see the most, are during SAEC, before we were three to four staff, before this (staff reductions), and now we are two staff in the afternoon, so it is most notable there, and what is a pity is that if one child want to play and do something with me, then I cannot do that because sadly I have to say that I must walk around, to watch everybody. And this is very boring because if a child comes to me and asks if I would like to play bandy with him, then I really want to do that, because the child has asked me, and I think it would be fun to join, but I have to say no, and I think that is dull. (Robbie)

Robbie describes how relational work with children by playing with them is hindered by structural conditions in daily practice. Robbie describes this situation as a form of guarding, he must move around and check what is happening between the children instead of playing. We interpret this as there is no space to establish good relations with the children. This is something that staff point out as being important when working with safe spaces and avoiding violent spaces.

Both John and Robbie describe an urgent need for more time and space to establish relations with each other of how to work together as a team. The relationships they have formed with each other, as staff in a small school, result in a routinized everyday life that keeps on rolling but not in an optimal way. It is difficult to establish good relations with the children because, as they say, they need to guard them instead. Most of the time there are so many children and so few staff which creates a space of violence in different ways that staff struggle to manage.

Managing violence among children is described as both managing direct situations as well as planning activities that contribute to a calm and safe space for children. Thus, lack of time and place contribute to space where violence can occur.

The results will be discussed in the following section.

Discussion

This study investigated how staff describe violence in children’s organized leisure in Swedish SAEC centers. The results illustrate children’s everyday life as filled with violence and with limited resources for the staff to create safe spaces for children. To be able to demonstrate how the staff describes and manage violence in respect to time and space, we have chosen to initially discuss our findings using Galtung’s (1990) levels of violence.

Direct violence

The presented findings of how the staff describe violence—quarrel for fun, violations, and physical violence—are all examples of direct violence.

Quarrel for fun is described as starting with children playing and escalating to serious situations of physical violence. When children are acting violently, it has consequences for the whole group, because they see, hear, feel, and experience violence. Some children use violation as an everyday language that encloses everyone in the center. This means that violation can occur in all spaces, places, and relationships during children’s time in SAEC. Physical violence appears to be quite frequent, and some of this is described as serious acts of physical violence.

This result can also be compared to previous research indicating the occurrence of social exclusion, conflicts, and fights among children in SAEC (Lago & Elvstrand, 2019; Ljusberg, 2018). In line with previous research, our findings highlight the importance of providing enough staff, and enough time for the staff to discuss and handle direct violence, and to support the children in their everyday life (Cumming et al., 2017; Mihalic et al., 2008; Tidmarsh, Thompson, et al., 2022; Tidmarsh, Whiting, 2022; Wenz-Gross & Upshur, 2012).

Structural violence

Findings on how staff handle violence are all expressions of structural violence. Structural violence is connected to how staff work under very stressful conditions, which lead to unsafe situations for children and unfunctional leisure time. When organizational problems are not solved, structural violence is created, affecting children and staff negatively (Galtung & Fischer, 2013).

Previous research has highlighted how SAEC centers can be a place for preventive social pedagogical work with a unique profession for children’s well-being (Hjalmarsson & Odenbring, 2020, 2023). This study found how staff evade dealing with violence, which we interpret as a result of inadequate resources to enable quality and equivalence. This result stresses the importance of teacher trained staff, with possibilities and mandate to influence the use of rooms and the time structure. Previous research (Andishmand, 2017; Lago & Elvstrand, 2019) points at this structural dismantling, where Lager (2020) identified how stable teamwork builds on relational work and is an important structural aspect for good quality at SAEC, also reported by Tidmarsh, Thompson, et al. (2022) in relation to positive youth development programs. Along with their results, our own results regarding the occurrence and consequences of violence for both staff and children are alarming too.

Violent spaces seem to remain because of the limited resources of time and space. The staff are too exhausted to be able to care for children or to resolve the most acute situations. None of the staff members described any form of resistance. This elucidates the process of normalizing violence and are alarming results of work for supporting positive youth development. This needs to be addressed to policymakers and responsible organizations.

Cultural violence

Cultural violence seems to be embedded within both direct and structural violence; in this way, it connects with both, the staff’s ways of describing, and handling violence. It is important to draw attention to staff descriptions of the language that children are permitted to use. These words (gay, whore, n-word, imbecile, your mum is poor, and so on) mentioned by the staff are discriminating and humiliating to other individuals in the immediate environment. This was in relation to children dressing and behaving in ways that are considered to be outside socially acceptable norms. This individual exposure has also been identified in previous research (Ashrafi et al., 2020; Forsberg & Thornberg, 2016; Moffat et al., 2019), which is noteworthy in relation to how the specific school we studied has a non-tolerance policy against violence.

The absence of time and space for managing violent situations forces staff to let the children themselves learn how to manage violent situations. Neglecting and minimizing violent behavior is a way to normalize violence, which is cultural violence (Galtung, 1990). The SAEC centers are meant to be an arena for pro- social work with teachers holding a unique professional position for children’s positive development (Hjalmarsson & Odenbring, 2023), and an organized arena for children to meet and build good relations (Colistra et al., 2019), this study’s finding shows the need for changes in time and space for staff as well as the need for trained staff to be able to build a culture for nonviolence.

Direct, structural, and cultural violence and processes normalizing violence

Our results indicate how violence and violent actions are underpinned and accepted within the structure. Social exclusion, conflicts, and fights among children were also reported by Lago and Elvstrand (2019) and Ljusberg (2018) as part of children’s everyday life in SAEC centers. Violence interacts within dimensions of time, space, and place, and when time is limited and space is narrow, staff seems to adapt to poor conditions. These material and relational adaptions limit staff members’ ability to support and guide children. Pro-social work becomes impossible, and when supportive and preventive work is missing, everyday life becomes embedded with violence that normalizes it.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study used only a small data sample, which has its limitations. Interviewees were located in one small rural school in Sweden; thus, the results presented in this study cannot be generalized to a larger population. Even though it is a small piece of research, it reflects the perspectives of staff who work with children daily in this SAEC.

This study contributes to the literature by adding knowledge about children’s everyday life in SAEC centers from the staff perspective. It pinpoints the complexity where violence occurs in different ways between children, where staff are not able to manage problems appropriately. Instead, they adjust to time and space, where violence between children is normalized. This highlights the importance of acknowledging children’s everyday life in SAEC in further research, both from a staff perspective and from the children’s own perspectives. These recommendations have also been raised by Hjalmarsson and Odenbring (2023), and Ashrafi et al. (2020) highlight the lack of research focusing on peer victimization and bullying among the age group of 9–14. Large-scale studies could also bring valuable knowledge to the occurrence and forms of violence in different SAEC centers located in different areas in Sweden. More knowledge about the occurrence of violence across SAEC centers could make the results in this study more generalizable and the recommendations more meaningful to SAEC centers.

It is noteworthy that although violence in urban areas of Sweden is acknowledged in both research and the media, this is not the case in rural Sweden. This study provides knowledge about violence and how it manifests in a rural context, highlighting the need for research in rural areas.

Conclusions

The study pinpoints the complexity in everyday life where violence in different ways occurs between children, and staff are unable to manage this in an appropriate way. Instead, staff adjust to time and place, where spaces of violence between children are normalized. These findings may have serious implications for positive youth development and the building of strong relationships, as they show how deficiencies in staff practices and in the working environment contribute to the risk of violence in everyday life in SAECs. Therefore, research that involves children and follows them in their everyday life and potentially risky environments may contribute to expanding the field of knowledge.

The poor conditions in practice and their consequences are exemplified by this small case, recognize how structural problems affect children’s everyday life in terms of violence. Children’s organized leisure has the potential to support and strengthen children, but differences in organization and quality seem to construct social injustice among children. In this manner, this study also contributes to the field of leisure research, where findings show the importance of supporting meaningful leisure and how it may contribute to people’s well-being and strengthen their relationships with others (Colistra et al., 2019). Research has shown that evaluated programs for support (different kinds of problems) of children and young people have been successful, but regardless of the type of support, success also seems to be depending on qualified staff with financial resources in space and time (Cumming et al., 2017; Mihalic et al., 2008; Tidmarsh, Thompson, et al., 2022; Tidmarsh, Whiting, 2022; Wenz-Gross & Upshur, 2012). This underlines the importance of staff gaining access to the necessary support and resources when working with children in SAEC and other forms of organized leisure.

School leaders and politicians need to take these descriptions seriously and consider what consequences this might bring both in the short and long term for children and youth development and for the society.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Appendix

Table A1. Overview of participants.

Name	Degree at university yes/no	Title	No. of years working in SAEC/school
Ann	yes	Teacher specialized in SAEC	2/13
John	no	Student assistant	4
Robbie	no	Student assistant	8
Karen	no	Student assistant	15
Elena	yes	Principal	5
Laura	yes	Teacher specialized in special education	4
Beatrice	yes	School welfare officer	5
Linda	no	Student assistant	1
Lisa	no	Substitute teacher	6
Olga	no	Substitute teacher	3