Norwegian Child Welfare Services: A Successful Program for Protecting and Supporting Vulnerable Children and Parents?

Kojan, Bente Heggem

doi:10.1080/0312407x.2010.538069

Cited by 24 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kojan, 2015;Studsrød, Willumsen, & Ellingsen, 2014;Thrana & Fauske, 2015), there is still limited research exploring parents' understandings and perceptions of involvement with CWS (Dumbrill, 2006;Hardy & Darlington, 2008). There seems to be a lack of knowledge about how the people most closely affected by the CWS, view their experience within it (Baker, 2007), including parents' opinions of the referrals.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

When the Norwegian child-welfare services get involved: parents making sense of referrals

Studsrød

Ellingsen

Willumsen

2015

European Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is limited research exploring parents' views and understanding of referrals to the child-welfare services (CWS). This study explores parents' understanding of the circumstances leading to a child-welfare referral, and their understanding of the reporter's objectives in making the referral. Qualitative content analysis and frequency analysis was performed on open-ended survey responses from a sample of 683 Norwegian parents in contact with the CWS. The results showed that the majority (60.2%) of the parents perceived the referral to be initiated solely because of parental difficulties and multiple family life stressors. Some of the parents (22.8%) believed the referrals were initiated exclusively because of their children's problems, whereas a few (13.3%) perceived it to be a combination of parental/familial difficulties and children's problems. The findings reveal that close to half of the parents (46.4%) felt the objective of the person making the referral was to help the child, their parents and the family. Some (36.5%) saw it as a routine or mandated action by public or official services, while others (18.7%) reported that they did not know why referrals had been made, or gave no answer to the question. A small group of parents (6%) viewed the referral as an act of harassment. The main implications of these findings are discussed.Det er mangel på forskning som omhandler foreldres erfaring med-og forståelse av hvorfor en melder fra til barneverntjenesten. Denne studien utforsker foreldres forståelse av de bakgrunnsfaktorene som førte til at det ble sendt melding til barneverntjenesten og deres syn på formålet med meldingen. Studien baserer seg på spørreskjema fra 683 norske foreldre som har hatt kontakt med barneverntjenesten i Norge. Innholdsanalyse og frekvensanalyse ble brukt for å analysere spørsmål der respondentene selv formulerte svarene. Undersøkelsen viste at majoriteten av foreldrene (60,2%) mente at årsaken til at barnevernet ble kontaktet var vanskelige foreldre-og familieforhold. Noen foreldre (22,8%) mente at årsaken til meldingen var barnets vansker, mens noen få (13,3%) mente at det var en kombinasjon av foreldrenes egne vansker, familienes vansker og barnas vansker, som utløste bekymringsmeldingen. Funnene viste dessuten at nesten halvparten (46,4%) av foreldrene mente at grunnen til at det ble sendt en melding, var at melderen ønsket at barnet, foreldrene og familien skulle få hjelp. Noen foreldre (36,5%) så på meldingen som en rutine av offentlige meldere med meldeplikt. En liten gruppe foreldre (6%) mente at meldingen var sendt for å sjikanere dem eller deres barn. Implikasjoner av resultatene blir diskutert.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 95%

When the Norwegian child-welfare services get involved: parents making sense of referrals

Studsrød

Ellingsen

Willumsen

2015

European Journal of Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Norway there is not a unified approach to substantiating allegations of maltreatment; child protection is one of the several reasons for state intervention in the lives of children (Skivenes, 2011). Kojan (2011) suggests that many children who become clients of the child welfare system in Norway are 'socio-economically marginalised rather than in need of protection'. programme which is targeted at families most at risk of entering the child protection system (Wood, 2008).…”

Section: Substantiation Of Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Norway, less than 5% of entrants are aged under two years, which may reflect the strong focus placed on preventative work and the extensive use of in-home services to support families; the system is orientated towards caring for those aged six-17 who account for about 60% of entrants (Kojan, 2011;Skivenes, 2011 Skivenes, 2002). One reason for this is that maintaining the blood tie between biological parents and children is presumed to be a moral and legal right for both parties and therefore adoption is rarely used in Norway (Skivenes, 2011;Weyland, 1997).…”

Section: 'In Care' Population and 'New Entrants' To The Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Emphasis was placed on lowering thresholds for intervention and promoting early intervention and prevention through the provision of support and promotion of equality of opportunities (Healy and Oltedal, 2010;Kojan, 2011;Tjelflaat, 2001). It was anticipated that this approach would secure children's rights and that offering services earlier would prevent the escalation of difficulties and thus reduce incidents of serious maltreatment and the demand or need for out of home placements.…”

Section: Norwaymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Safeguarding Children: A Comparison of England's Data with that of Australia, Norway and the United States

Munro¹,

Manful²

2012

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Participatory decision-making represents a shift from professional and authority dominated decision-making processes to a more democratic approach . Thirdly, participatory practice has also been linked to parental satisfaction and positive outcomes (Dale 2004;Kojan, 2011;Holland, 2000, Trotter 2008Maiter, Palmer & Manji, 2006;Thomson & Thorpe, 2003). As such, there is a large and growing body of literature that cites participatory approaches to child protection as best practice (Berrick et al, 2016;Healy & Darlington, 2009).…”

Section: Participatory Principles and Child Protection Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative practice in statutory in child protection practice: Parental agreements and procedural justice

Venables¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationally, there is a growing trend to introduce alternative pathways for children and their families involved with statutory child protection systems. These alternatives focus on developing partnerships with families in order to promote children's safety and well-being within their homes. The form that alternative pathways take varies by jurisdiction.In Queensland (Australia), where this study takes place, the State Government has identified the use of parental agreements to be the least intrusive option available to the child protection authority when a child has been substantiated, via a full investigation, as in need of protection. These agreements are known as 'Intervention with Parental Agreement' (IPA) and allow for the statutory authority to work in partnership with families to address child protection concerns, without the use of a court order. Little is known about how IPA occurs and the extent to which its collaborative ethos is realised in practice.This study aims to provide a detailed understanding of collaborative practice in statutory child protection, using the example of IPA. The study has a key focus on procedural justice, that is the quality of treatment that people receive from an authority during decision-making processes (Tyler, 2006). Using a two-phase, qualitative methodology the study explores the perspectives of practitioners and parents involved in IPA practice.Phase one involved semi-structured interviews with 33 practitioners from the Queensland child protection authority, tertiary family support services and a service responsible for providing cultural guidance in cases that involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. Phase two of the study involved semi-structured interviews with four parents. The interviews captured their unique experience of being subject to IPA, with a focus on their procedural justice judgements.The findings of the study indicate that the crisis-driven nature of statutory child protection in conjunction with the dominance of a risk-adverse culture is perceived by practitioners to be a barrier to collaborative practice. However, the local office culture within branch offices of the child protection authority and relationship-driven models of practice were found to facilitate collaboration in IPA practice.In particular, the nature and quality of three key partnerships of practice was found to shape how IPA practice occurred. These partnerships are: intra-agency partnerships, particularly those between statutory officers at the branch office level; inter-agency 2 partnerships; and those between practitioners and parents. The findings highlight that each of these partnerships are characterised by hierarchical relationships between the different stakeholders. Within all three of these partnerships, procedural justice emerged as an important factor for facilitating positive and collaborative working partnerships. This demonstrated that procedurally fair treatment is important to both parents and practitioners during IPA practice.All of the p...

show abstract

Norwegian Child Welfare Services: A Successful Program for Protecting and Supporting Vulnerable Children and Parents?

Cited by 24 publications

References 13 publications

When the Norwegian child-welfare services get involved: parents making sense of referrals

When the Norwegian child-welfare services get involved: parents making sense of referrals

Safeguarding Children: A Comparison of England's Data with that of Australia, Norway and the United States

Collaborative practice in statutory in child protection practice: Parental agreements and procedural justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About