The Assessment Process in

Norwegian Child Protection

Jim Lurie
Torill Tjelflaat

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu EUSARF 2014 Making a Difference

 2

Aim of the Presentation

Describe how child protection workers in Norway work with
assessments of children reported to be at risk
Describe key aspects of the investigative and decision-
making process including:
Legal basis for an investigation
How comprehensive are investigations?
Different types of investigations
Role of the child in the investigation
Use of professional experts
Reasons for dismissing an investigation without intervention
Factors contributing to success and failure of investigations

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 3

Data Collection/Research Design

Exploratory research design
Comparison of views of child protection workers and county
supervisors/inspectors
Semistructured qualitative interviews
Informants:
Leaders/staff from 18 municipal child protection agencies; including 7
single municipal agencies, 7 inter-municipal agencies, and 4 district
agencies
Supervisors/inspectors from 3 county level child protection authorities
in central Norway

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 4

Statistics on dismissals of risk reports

and investigations
Reports, investigations & interventions
Child welfare services (CWS) received over 49,000 reports of children at
risk in 2012, 20 % of these dismissed without investigation
CWS carried out 37,000 investigations in 2012, 53 % of these dismissed
without intervention
Taken together only 38 % of cases reporting children at risk resulted in
an intervention in 2012 (less than 19,000 interventions)

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 5

Penalties for using too much time, but

not for poor quality work
CWA ( 6-9) sets time limits for reviewing a risk report
(1 week) and for completion of an investigation
(normally 3 months), the county governor can impose
fines on agencies not meeting these deadlines
2 % of risk reports, and 14 % of investigations did not
meet deadlines in 2012
CWA imposes no penalties for poor quality child
protection work in these two areas, this can result in
agencies prioritizing timeliness at expense of more
thorough investigations

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 6

Legal framework: When should CWS

investigate a report of concern?
CWS shall investigate reports of concern if there is reasonable
cause to assume that circumstances obtain which may provide a
basis for measures pursuant to this chapter ( 4-3)
Lowest threshold for intervention is for voluntary home-based
family support ( 4-4) when the child due to conditions at
home, or for other reasons is in particular need of assistance
CWS shall also investigate more serious concerns involving
possible mistreatment, serious neglect, or a child with persistent,
serious behavioral problems; such investigations may result in a
care order ( 4-12), or compulsory placement in a residential care
facility (4-24)

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 7

How comprehensive should an

investigation be?
Norwegian law has 2 standards for comprehesiveness which can
conflict with each other
General rule for all public decision making is to ensure that a
case is illuminated as well as possible before a decision is made
(Public Admin Act 17)
CWA has more specific rule which can limit the scope of an
investigation which shall be carried out in such a way as to
minimize the harm it causes to anyone affected, and shall not
have a wider scope than that justified by its purpose. (CWA 4-3)

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 8

Two kinds of investigations aimed at

help or control
Law gives CWS workers two different types of authority help and
control
Though all investigations are legally based upon CWA 4-3, informants
distinguished between two kinds of investigations: less serious focused
on home-based, consensual help to the family (CWA 4-4), and more
serious focused on possible mandatory care order and placement
outside the home
Most families receive supportive services from CWS (83 % in 2012),
while 17 % were placed in care
Informants reported that the decision about the degree of seriousness of
investigation has clear consequences for practice

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 9

Differences in practice with two kinds

of investigation
Type Extent Use of Use of Who Role of
assess- expert decides? parents
ment
instrument

Less Limited Seldom, a Almost CWS leader Partners,

serious few items never cooperative
( 4-4) only
More More Varies More County Social Object of
serious thorough between often, Welfare Board investigation,
( 4-12) agencies, usually (CSWB) Less
not whole initiative cooperation
instrument, of with parents
checklist CSWB

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 10

The Role of The Child

The Child Welfare Act; 6-3
states that a child who has reached the age of 7, and younger children who are
capable of forming their own opinions, shall receive information and be given an
opportunity to state his or her opinion before a decision is made in a case affecting
him or her.

Importance shall be attached to the opinion of the child in accordance with his or her
age and maturity.

A child may appear as a party in a case and exercise his or her rights as a party if he
or she has reached the age of 15 and understands the subject-matter of the case.

Findings:
If and how the CWS involves the child varies between services. Almost all speak
with young people > 15 years of age (as legal party).
Communication methods vary considerably. Professional discretion is often used
to decide on methods.

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 11

The Role of The Child continued..

CWS considers information from the child as important; particularly if the child
verifies suspicion and seems credible, and the information appears to be
convincing and fits into an overall understanding of the situation.
All information from the child is documented in its journal.
CWSs feedback to the child varies.
Young people > 15 years of age always receive information in accordance with
their rights as a legal party in the case.
Feedback to the younger ones seems to be dependent on the childs involvement
in the case, kind of case, and if a measure directly will affect the child; support
person, home therapist, school assistance etc.
Parents are often asked to inform the child.

Many of the CWSs in the study say they are not good enough at
informing and giving feedback to the child at the end of the
investigation, and want to do a better job in this matter.

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 12

Use of Professional Experts

The Child Welfare Act 4-3
states that CWS may engage experts. According to the white paper - NOU 2006:9, it
is up to CWS to consider if, when and the professional focus for the experts
contribution.
The County Social Welfare Board can also appoint experts in child welfare cases
(SWA 9-6).

Findings:
Use of experts vary among the CWSs, but are seldom used in the investigation
process.
Many CWS mean their competence is good enough (social work).
Use of experts is an expensive arrangement.
Experts are used in complex cases that need qualified evaluation of parents
competence and functioning, the impact of mental health problems, lack of social
interaction and attachment, and in families with severe conflicts.
Experts are also used in cases that will end up as care orders, and in cases that
will be tried for the CSWB or County Court.
Experts are always psychologists.

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 13

Variation between CWS agencies in our

study
CWS agencies vary in their practice with investigations:
Use of plan for investigation
Comprehensiveness
Information collection (how and from whom)
Use of standardized instruments
Interaction with parents and the child
Use of experts
Reason for dismissal or for intervention
Dismissals without intervention from 20 77 %
Over legal time limit from 0 78 %

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 14

Reasons for concluding an

investigation with no intervention
Reported risk not confirmed; child receiving adequate care
Problem not within CWS mandate, for instance parental conflict
involving separation/divorce/child visititation
The family is already receiving help from another agency, or is
referred to another agency by CWS; but is this valid reason for
dismissal? CWS can retain responsibility for case and
evaluation without providing own intervention
CWS concludes that intervention is needed but parents wont
consent and insufficient grounds for mandatory action; CWS can
dismiss with concern and reopen investigation after 6 months

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 15

Factors contributing to a successful

investigation
Most informants emphasized importance of a good
cooperative relationship to parents (sometimes to child)
Factors contributing to this were:
openness and honesty on part of CWS workers
good information to parents about CWS and the investigative
process
agreement about plan for investigation
good communication/dialogue between CWS and parents
frequent contact with parents during investigation
good contact with parents makes contact with child easier

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 16

Success factors (2)

Timely response from other agencies to CWS information
request
Good and complete information about child and family from
other agencies
Good plan for investigation
Two CWS workers cooperating on investigation
Competent/experienced CWS workers
Availability of competent interpreters

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu
 17

Thanks for your attention!

www.ntnu.edu/rkbu