Child protection assessments in Norway - Experiences of workers and families

Objectives Child protection assessments in Norway play an important role in determining which children receive child protection services and which services they receive. The results from two recent studies of the assessment... [ view full abstract ]

Objectives
Child protection assessments in Norway play an important role in determining which children receive child protection services and which services they receive. The results from two recent studies of the assessment process will be presented. These describe the assessment process from the perspective of child protection workers and families. The studies provide interesting new information about how child protection workers carry out assessments, and how workers and family members experience interaction with each other in this process.

Method
The studies are qualitative, with data collected through interviews with participants in the assessment process in central Norway. The first study is based on interviews with child protection leaders and workers from 18 local agencies, and with supervisors from three county authorities. A second ongoing follow-up study is based on interviews with workers and family members who have interacted in a recent child protection assessment.

Results
The first study found much variation in how local child protection agencies carry out assessments. This is partly due to Norwegian law which gives local agencies and individual workers considerable discretion in the assessment process.

Variation was found with regard to completion of assessments within mandated deadlines (normally three months), and the proportion of assessments which resulted in a child protection intervention. There was also variation with regard to how workers carried out the assessments. Practice variations included whether and how standardized assessment instruments were used, different types of interaction with the child and the parents, and to what extent they participated actively in the assessment process. There were also variations with regard to interaction with other agencies and in the use of outside experts in making assessments.

Some similarities in practice were also found. Child protection workers distinguished between two types of assessments, ordinary and comprehensive assessments, which were handled quite differently. This distinction was often made early in the assessment process based upon the presumed seriousness of the case, and the most likely outcome of the assessment, supportive services to the family, or placement of the child in alternative care.

Reasons for concluding an assessment with no intervention were also similar. The most common reasons were failure to find a legal need for services, parental unwillingness to accept voluntary support services, and referral to other agencies with no follow-up by child protection services.

Preliminary findings from the second study indicate differences in how the child, the parents and child protection workers experience the assessment process, and interaction with each other. Workers often try to achieve good cooperation with the parents, in order to facilitate information gathering and to pave the way for agreement on choice of intervention. Family members, particularly the child, were sometimes less positive about interaction with child protection, and felt that they had too little influence.

Conclusion
Practice variation in carrying out child protection assessments raises important and complicated questions. Norwegian child protection policy aims to ensure the rights of children to competent assessments and needed services regardless of where in the country they reside. On the other hand, good quality professional child protection must be able to deal with complicated and challenging family situations on an individual basis, with good professional judgement and discretion that can require differing solutions in seemingly similar circumstances. Pressure to complete assessments within mandated deadlines must not result in poor quality assessments, or in the failure to ensure that the child and the parents are able to participate in a meaningful way.