Content uploaded by Bente Heggem Kojan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bente Heggem Kojan on Apr 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag]
On: 12 April 2015, At: 23:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Australian Social Work
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasw20
Norwegian Child Welfare Services: A
Successful Program for Protecting and
Supporting Vulnerable Children and
Parents?
Bente Heggem Kojan a
a Sør-Trøndelag University College , Trondheim, Norway
Published online: 18 Mar 2011.
To cite this article: Bente Heggem Kojan (2011) Norwegian Child Welfare Services: A Successful
Program for Protecting and Supporting Vulnerable Children and Parents?, Australian Social Work,
64:4, 443-458, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2010.538069
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2010.538069
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Norwegian Child Welfare Services: A Successful Program for
Protecting and Supporting Vulnerable Children and Parents?
Bente Heggem Kojan
Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim, Norway
Abstract
This paper describes and analyses the program of Child Welfare Services (CWS) in
Norway, using primary sources, aggregated data from Statistics Norway (SSB) and data
from a recent study of 715 parents in contact with CWS. These data show that Norway’s
program orientation is on support, prevention, and early intervention, policies relevant
to the emerging Australian policy context. Many of these services were beneficial for the
general welfare of the children’s family with over three- quarters of the children registered
as clients in the Norwegian CWS receiving only supportive services during 2008. On the
contrary, Australian systems primarily aim to identify and protect children under
(possible) risk of abuse or neglect. Also, the survey data shows that families in contact
with CWS are different to the general population in important ways, including family
structure/demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and physical and mental health.
The results demonstrated that most of the parents agreed to contact CWS, and many
were satisfied with the help they received. The data demonstrate that the Norwegian
CWS respond to the welfare needs of vulnerable and marginalised families. Possible
implications the Norwegian system might have for the children and parents who are
accessing services are discussed.
Keywords: Norway; Child Welfare Services; Parent Satisfaction; Social Control; The Best
Interest of the Child
This paper describes important features of the Norwegian Child Welfare Services
(CWS), and discusses possible outcomes and implications for children and parents.
The first section provides a short overview of the Norwegian child welfare policies,
and the legal and organisational arrangements of the CWS. An overview of the causes
of intervention, types of responses, and rates of children with supportive services and
out-of-home-care is then provided, followed by a description of the families who are
in contact with the CWS. It then discusses the extent to which the system is able to
meet the needs of vulnerable families, including possible implications of a flexible
and family-oriented system openly accessed by the parents.
Accepted 24 October 2010
Correspondence to: Bente Heggem Kojan, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Trondheim Norway. E-mail:
bente.h.kojan@hist.no
ISSN 0312-407X (print)/ISSN 1447-0748 (online) #2011 Australian Association of Social Workers
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2010.538069
Australian Social Work
Vol. 64, No. 4, December 2011, pp. 443458
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
Cameron and Freymond (2006), and Hearn, Po¨so¨, Smith, White and Korpinen
(2004) argued that exchanging knowledge about different systems of child protection
and child welfare is crucial to refocus, redirect, and develop the ways in which the
State meets the needs of vulnerable and marginalised children and families. The
rationale of this paper is to offer an analysis of the Norwegian system of CWS;
however, another paper comparing the Australian and Norwegian systems is currently
being developed. Although there are contextual distinctions between Australia and
Norway, what is happening in Norway is also relevant to Australia, with the advent of
the National Framework for protecting Australian children and a greater emphasis on
early intervention and support (Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth,
2009; Commonwealth of Australia, 2009).
Important principles of the Norwegian program of Child Welfare Services (CWS)
are support, prevention, equality of opportunities, and early intervention (Healy &
Oltedal, 2010; Tjelflaat, 2001). Over 75% of children nationally are supported while
living with their parent(s) (Statistics Norway, 2009). Clearly, this is in contrast to
the Australian approaches to child protection where protection and safety are core
principles (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2010; Humphreys et al., 2009;
Lonne, Parton, Thomson, & Harries, 2009). The scope of supportive services has
increased since the early 1990s, a function of the CWS that can be viewed as a late
modern feature of the system.
Norway: An Overview of Demographics and Welfare Policies
Norway is one of the Scandinavian countries and covers an area of 385,199 km
2
.In
January 2009, Norway had a population of approximately 4,800,000 people. Children
constitute a growing proportion of the population and in 2009 there were 1,103,500
children aged 017 years, approximately 23% of the Norwegian population. Norway
has 12 counties and 430 municipalities, although 129 out of 430 municipalities have
fewer than 2499 inhabitants (Statistics Norway, 2010).
The country has a long tradition of providing welfare services for families, and is
typically defined as a social democratic State (Esping-Andersen, 1999). This tradition
entails the State providing a wide range of family services, most of which are fully
subsidised by the tax system, such as the public schools system (a 10-year compulsory
primary school education, in addition to public secondary schools and universities),
health and medical services, and child care services. Other ‘‘welfare’’ activities are
partly subsidised, such as kindergarten/day care for children, after school programs,
and a variety of leisure activities for children (music, arts, sport etc). The social
security system in Norway also provides a broad range of family allowances to
support families with children, for example, benefits to single parents. Many of the
allowances are universal and independent of parental income. In addition, means-
tested social assistance can be provided through social security services (Bradshaw &
Terum, 1997). Although the Scandinavian countries are recognised for low levels of
poverty among children due to their distributive tax systems (Eydal & Kro¨ger, 2009),
444 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
a recent study suggested that the proportion of children in Norway in relative poverty
has grown from 5.1% in 2000 to 7.9% in 2006 (Nadim & Nielsen, 2009).
CWS represents a ‘‘need based’’ service, which means that all reports of concerns
are assessed by front-line staff in the municipalities. The central legislative framework
for the provision of CWS is the Child Welfare Act (CWA) of 1992, whose functions are
to protect children from abuse and neglect, and to increase the opportunities for
children with poor living conditions (sections 1-1 and 4-4). The CWA applies to all
children between the ages of 018 years; however, services can be given to children up
to 23 years. In 2003 the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was incorporated
into the CWA, formally emphasising the right of children’s participation on matters
that concern their welfare (Sandberg, Høstmælingen, & Kjørholt, 2008).
The Organisation of Norwegian CWS
Figure 1 outlines the organisational framework of the CWS in Norway, with
responsibility for providing and arranging services being shared between the
municipalities and the central authorities. The responsibility for the provision of
services occurs on two levels. Although the CWS in Norway is enacted legislatively on
a national level, the day-to-day activities are operated on a local level. The Norwegian
Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs (Bufetat) is a centralised
authority, which is responsible for the recruitment and provision of out-of-home
care, such as foster homes and institutions. The local CWS (municipalities) are
responsible for guidance, accepting and evaluating referrals, investigating children’s
situations and also acting as organisers, coordinators and providers of most of the
direct services. Each municipality has a high degree of political autonomy in the
Figure 1 The Organisation of Child Welfare Services in Norway.
Australian Social Work 445
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
organisation of the services and a high level of professional discretion in the decision-
making about what needs or behaviour should be responded to; hence, the ways in
which the CWS provides and organises the services for children varies across the
country (Clifford & Lichtwarck, 2010). Therefore, drawing general conclusions about
CWS practices in Norway is complicated. The County Social Welfare Board
(Fylkesnemnda) is a court-like administrative body involved in cases where local
CWS suggest that children should be removed from their homes.The executive
controlling organs of the municipalities are the County Governors (Fylkesmannen).
Children with potential needs come into contact with the local CWS through a
variety of avenues. Parents are the most frequent reporters, and reports of concern are
made by social workers, other professionals in schools, kindergartens and health
services, community members, police, and so on. Not all reports of concern result in
a referral to CWS (Drugli & Marthinsen, 1998). When a referral is formally received
by CWS, municipalities have one week to determine whether or not further action is
required. If a referral results in an investigation, CWS obtains more information
about the child and its immediate surroundings. Investigations usually result in one
of the following options: (a) a decision to intervene in the family with the approval of
children and parents (section 4-4 of CWA) or without the approval of children and
parents (sections 4-12 and 4-24 of CWA); (b) the child or the parents being referred
to other services (e.g., family counselling or psychiatric services); or, (c) closing the
case. A resolution may lead to different forms of action, and often entails a
combination of services to the child and the parents. If children are to be placed
outside their homes, this can be done either with the parents’consent or by CWS
taking custody of the child by court order. In Australia and typical Anglo-American
approaches, abuse, neglect, or harm are usually preconditions for receiving services
(Khoo, Hyvo¨nen, & Nygren, 2003; Lonne et al., 2009). Support services might be
offered, however these are normally provided through other welfare programs or
voluntary organisations. In the Nordic countries, the CWS has been referred to as a
‘‘family oriented’’ service with a strong focus on preventive efforts (Egelund &
Sundell, 2001; Forsberg & Kro¨ger, 2009; Tjelflaat, 2001), there being a wide definition
of who exactly is a ‘‘needy child’’. Healy and Oltedal (2010) pointed out that ‘‘the
notion of equality is integral’’ (p. 6) in the CWA (section 4-4), mirroring the social
democratic profile of the child and family policies in Norway.
Method
Data Sources and Procedure
In order to focus on the outcomes of the current system, two sources of data are used
to describe the characteristics of the children and parents receiving services. The first
data set is derived from Statistics Norway’s yearly reports on the activities of the
Norwegian CWS (Statistics Norway, 2009). These aggregated data include: number of
children receiving services by cause, type, and age; number of investigations started
by who referred the case; and the result of the investigation and staff levels. The other
446 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
data set consists of a recent interview survey of 715 families in contact with CWS. The
study was undertaken by staff (including the author of this article) from
the University in Stavanger, Lillehammer University College, Nordland Research
Institute and Sør-Trøndelag University College (Fauske et al., 2009). The parents were
from different households and were interviewed in four different regions of Norway,
covering three large cities and nine smaller municipalities. The survey was conducted
in 20082009, and SPSS software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, USA) was used for analysis. This
is the largest study in this area that has hitherto been carried out in Norway and was
the first of three phases of a larger national project titled ‘‘The New Child Welfare
Services’’. The subsequent phases consist of further data collections building on the
initial interview data.
Participants
The informants were recruited through the CWS, and the interviews were completed
face-to-face by researchers and research assistants. All participants gave informed
consent to participate in the study. This study consisted of two data sets with one
answered by one of the parent(s) of the child, and the other by their social workers.
The data set for parents had six sections: (a) how the family came into contact with
CWS; (b) characteristics of the child; (c) parent’s stressors; (d) the role of parent; (e)
living conditions and background characteristics; and (f) satisfaction with CWS.
Social workers reported on: (a) background characteristics of the family; (b) type of
services; (c) referee and collaborators; and (d) cause(s) for intervention. Not
surprisingly, most of the parents interviewed were female (N514), as 43.9% of
the children lived with a single mother.
There was little missing data for the section that the parents answered, and the
sample is considered to be representative of the total child welfare population in
Norway, as the total proportion of children in out-of-home care, supportive services,
the types of services provided, and the child’s age were very similar to the proportions
shown in the aggregated national data.
Results
Scope and Type of Responses
Table 1 illustrates that increasing numbers of children have been accessing services
over the last decade. The rates of children using services have risen significantly
between 1997 and 2008. However, 75.4% of the children lived with their parent(s)
while receiving assistance. In 2008 the rate of children in out-of-home care was 7.9
per 1000 children, including voluntary placements. According to Statistics Norway
(2009)Norway, a total of 6406 out of 10,847 children who were placed outside their
homes were under the custody of the CWS. Children in the custody of CWS
increased by 1.2% from 2008 to 2009. Furthermore, staff levels increased from 2.2 per
1000 children in 1993 to 3.0 in 2008. Some of this may be due to extended sources of
Australian Social Work 447
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
funding/resources to the CWS from the beginning of the 1990s, which, among other
things, resulted in a considerable growth in CWS staff (Hagen, 2001).
As Table 2 shows, there are many reasons why children are accessing services. The
‘‘conditions in the home’’ was the reason for action in over half of the cases during
2008. This category gives little insight into the features of the precise conditions and,
in addition, the miscellaneous category ‘‘other reason’’ is the second most frequently
used. Previous studies have found that the category ‘‘other assistance’’ includes
different forms of guidance and intervention in the home and community-based
services for youths (Fauske et al., 2009; Gjerustad, Grønningsæter, Kvinge, Mossige, &
Vindegg, 2006). In one out of five cases, problems for the child were the cause for
intervention, and in over one of every four cases these were related to the parent. In
nearly 15% of the cases, the behavioural problems of the child were reported to be the
cause. Mental illnesses, inability of care, and drug abuse were the most frequent
parent-related reasons for action. In fewer than 4% of the new cases during 2008, the
cause for providing assistance was directly related to child abuse and neglect.
Services provided to children and families listed in Table 3, demonstrated that the
CWS responds to a variety of needs. Some children received several services at once;
hence supportive services were also used in combination with out-of-home care.
Indeed, in approximately one of every three support cases, services were provided to
children in out-of-home care (Fauske et al., 2009). The table shows that nearly 35%
of the services were focused on the home as a site for intervention, including services
such as guidance, home-based treatment, home adviser, supervision, and parent
Table 2 Main Reason for Intervention in New Cases during 2008, Norway, Statistics
Norway (2009) (%)
Reason % Reason %
Parent Related Child Related
Parent’s mental illness 8.5 Child’s behavioural problems 14.8
Parent’s inability of care 7.0 Child’s psychological problem 3.2
Parent’s drug excess 5.9 Child’s drug abuse 1.4
Domestic violence 4.1 Child disabled 1.1
Parent’s somatic illness 1.2
Parents dead 0.5
Parents criminality 0.4
Child Abuse and Neglect Other
Physical abuse 1.8 Conditions in the home 50.3
Mental abuse 0.7 Other reason 17.0
Neglect 0.6 Unknown reason 2.0
Sexual abuse/incest 0.6
Table 1 All Children Assisted by Child Welfare Services Norway by year, Statistics Norway
(2009) (per 1000 children)
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
26.8 26.9 26.8 27.4 28.3 28.8 29.8 31.0 32.1 32.9 34.8 35.9
448 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
management training. Most of the child-focused services were ‘‘mainstream’’ services,
such as kindergarten, leisure activities, and after school support. Visiting home/relief
support was provided to one quarter of the children, and this usually means the child
socially visiting another home or a farm once or twice a month, usually for two nights.
Further, a quarter of the children were in out-of-home care, most of them in foster
homes outside the family, and nearly 7% of the children were in residential care.
Characteristics of Children and Parents
The wide scope of the Norwegian CWS is illustrated by the diverse reasons for
deciding to intervene in families, and the variety of services they receive through the
system. However, the aggregated data say little about the characteristics of these
children and their parents.The survey analysis demonstrated distinct differences
between the general child population and the children in CWS with respect to a
number of indicators such as socioeconomic status of the children, family structure,
education level of parents, and physical and psychological health of the parents and
the children. Although families in contact with the CWS are a diverse population, the
survey shows that the socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the families
Table 3 Children with Services by Type of Assistance during 2008, Norway, Statistics
Norway (2009) (%)
Service Type % Service Type %
Supportive Services
Child Oriented Parent Oriented
Visiting home/relief support 25.0 Advice and guidance 21.6
Kindergarten 12.3 Other home based treatment 6.7
Leisure activity 11.3 Home adviser/relief at home 5.5
After school support 11.2 Supervision 5.4
Person selected to support child 9.5 Parent Management Training 2.1
Multisystemic treatment Oregon(PMTO)
Education/work 1.6 Centre for parents and children 1.0
Out-patient psychiatric treatment 1.3 Other
Treatment for children w special educational 0.7 Other assistance 39.6
needs 0.3 Economic support 25.3
Participation in a support
group
6.9
Medical examination/
treatment
1.5
Out-of-home Care
Foster Care Residential Care
Foster home outside the family 9.7 Child welfare institution 6.1
Reinforced foster home outside the family 7.5 Other treatment’s institution 0.7
Foster home within the family 4.1 Other
Reinforced foster home within the family 1.1 Emergency shelter home 3.0
Own housing 2.4
Note. The total% is higher than 100, as one child can have several services, including a combination of out-of-
home care and supportive services.
Australian Social Work 449
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
in contact with CWS have not changed significantly over recent decades. This
population is experiencing processes of marginalisation caused by changes in family
structure, lack of employment/education, low income, and inadequate support in
social networks. Children receiving services from CWS are more likely to live with a
single parent and, while nearly 75% of the child population in Norway lives with both
parents, only 19% of the children in the survey did. Furthermore, 50% of the children
lived with a single parent. These findings are consistent with previous studies
(Egelund et al., 2008).
The education level of the study parents was significantly lower than for the overall
population in Norway. According to Statistics Norway (2010), 16.9% of the general
population aged 3039 years had primary school as their highest education
level whereas approximately 25% of the parents in the survey had these qualifications
or lower qualifications. Although all social classes are represented in the services, 75%
are categorised as working class or unemployed (Fauske et al., 2009). However there
was wide variation between families’household incomes, with nearly 50% of the
parents receiving some sort of public allowances.
Furthermore, the data shows that a considerable number of the parents were
struggling with poor physical health and psychosocial problems, which had also been
found in previous studies (Clifford, 2006; Havnen, Jacobsen, & Stormark, 2009).
Other stressors that were experienced by the parents included: conflicts within
extended family; breakdown of relationship; and relocation. One out of six parents
scored high on accumulation of stressors (scoring 610 on a 10-point scale).
Additionally, parents reported that approximately half their children had health
problems, and 16% of the children had a psychiatric diagnosis. Some of these families
face complex problems that have accumulated over time.
Importantly, approximately 40% of the parents said that they had agreed to be
referred or had asked for help from CWS themselves. Also, three-quarters of the
parents reported considerable confidence with the services they received. One out of
five parents said that the services their child received improved the economic
situation of the household. Of particular interest is that parents whose child was in
out-of-home care were only slightly less satisfied than parents of children who
received supportive services while their children remained at home.
Summary of Data
In summary, the key points illustrating crucial developments of the Norwegian CWS
over the latter two decades include:
1. All indicators on CWS have increased: more resources are being used, and more
children and parents are accessing services.
2. The CW clients differ significantly from the general population in terms of their
family structure, living conditions, and health, which, taken overall, indicate their
increased social and economic disadvantage.
450 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
3. The CWS responds to child abuse and neglect; however, most families are
vulnerable and marginalised and receive only supportive services.
4. Parents report relatively high levels of satisfaction with the CWS.
5. Despite strong emphasis on the welfare of families, the proportion of children in
out-of-home care increased.
The aggregated data demonstrated that the proportion of supportive services
explains most of the increasing rates of children receiving assistance from CWS.
Economic support, kindergarten, leisure activities, and after school support were the
most frequently used services during 2008. In the eyes of the majority of parents
participating in the survey, the interventions from CWS were helpful for the child.
The data suggest that the Norwegian CWS responds positively to a variety of needs
that the children and parents are experiencing.
The survey data shows that most parents were satisfied with the help the child had
received from CWS. Also, many of them wanted help from CWS. From the parents’
point of view, the variety of services provided represents something they need and
want. Parents are the most frequent ‘‘reporters’’ of concern, and the study shows that
nearly 40% agreed to contact CWS. However, increases in supportive actions have not
decreased the proportion of children in out-of-home care.
Discussion
Challenges and Possible Implications of a Flexible System
The Norwegian system is flexible and readily accessed by parents. However, there
are some important contradictions with the system, such as the best interest of the
child, the surveillance of poor and marginalised families, and lack of attention to
the needs of children in care. These contradictions are discussed further in this
section.
On the one hand, the Norwegian system seems to recognise and respond to the
needs of families. CWS provides services that are wanted by the parents, and
the parents report high levels of satisfaction with the way their needs are being met by
the workers, and with the outcomes for the child. The analysis indicates a good match
between the services provided and the characteristics/needs of the CWS clients.
Clearly, the CWS workers are able to respond to various needs, ranging from
providing kindergarten and leisure activities to protecting children who experience
abuse and neglect. The diverse responses illustrate that professionals have room for
discretion in their assessment and intervention decision making. Although high levels
of discretion might result in very different practices between the municipalities, the
Norwegian CWS is undoubtedly a more flexible system than many other child
protection systems around the world that emphasise risk, standardised assessments,
and forensic investigation ‘‘techniques’’ (Cameron & Freymond, 2006). Compared to
parent satisfaction in child protection systems in Anglophone countries, where
parents are highly critical of the decision-making process and outcomes (Dale, 2004;
Australian Social Work 451
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
Freeman & Hunt, 1999; Thorpe & Thomson, 2003), the level of satisfaction reported
in the Norwegian sample is high.
It is arguable that parental satisfaction is a key indicator, albeit a proxy one, of
positive program outcomes. CWS is a public body that has the power to regulate and
intervene in the private sphere without the consent of the parents, which is not
necessarily the best starting point for social work practice. However, the study clearly
shows that the workers have succeeded in building good relations with the parents
including some of those whose children are removed. As pointed out, most parents are
content with the work of CWS, and in most CWS cases, working with the parents
equates with working positively with the child. The importance of respect,
recognition, and empowerment/involvement are values highlighted as crucial for
social work practice (International Federation of Social Workers, 2005). Although the
study does not allow any causal explanations to be drawn between the level of
satisfaction and these values, the results indicate that CWS workers generally stress
these values when interacting with parents.
However, the interests of the child and those of the parents are not always
concurrent or congruent. It has been argued that CWS workers’concern with
parents is at the cost of children’s participation in decision-making processes. In
some cases a high level of parent satisfaction may conflict with the interests of the
child. Several contributors have claimed that the children are not appropriately
involved in making decisions about themselves (Havnen, Christensen, & Havik,
1998; Holland, 2001; Sundell & Karlsson, 1999; Thrana, 2008), arguing that the
CWS are too concerned with the interests of the parents. Some of these authors
have suggested that the voices of the children are not audible enough in the CWS’s
decision-making process. For this reason, a public report about the CWS (Ministry
of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, 2009) suggested turning the CWA into
rights-based legislation to secure children’s participation. However, it could be
argued that the Norwegian debate concerning children’s versus parents’rights is
influenced by oppositions and dichotomies. As demonstrated in the analysis
section, many of the responses from the CWS aim to redress inequality by enabling
families to participate in mainstream society. Moreover, the analysis illustrated that
the CWS offers help to address the psychological and physical problems of the
children. Although the participation of children in the decision-making process
appears to be poor, the help offered indicates that the workers are aware of the best
interest of the child.
The CWA specifically pointed out the socially equalising function of the CWS
(section 4-4). Both the aggregated data and the interview results show that
professionals are able to accurately identify some of these families. The study data
demonstrated the overrepresentation of socioeconomically disadvantaged families.
Also, a great proportion of the supportive services are affirmative responses, which
seemingly aim to redress inequality. However, the provision of these services may also
serve other objectives. From a critical point of view, increased numbers of children
(and parents) accessing services also mean increased social control of marginalised
452 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
families. Through the provision of ‘‘wanted’’ services, it is easier for the CWS to gain
insight into and empathy for lower socioeconomic groups’approaches to child
rearing. Ericsson (2000) argued that
child welfare may be pictured as a tool that is used by the authorities to ensure that
family life does not deviate too markedly from the norms it considers should be
followed if the family is to fulfil its role as the cornerstone of an economically,
physically and morally healthy society. (p. 16)
It could be argued that the CWS as a cultural institution passes on the values of the
majority: the dominant middle class (Lareau, 2003). These values and practices might not
be shared by the lower socioeconomic groups; however, through parent-oriented
supportive services such as guidance and supervision, lower socioeconomic groups are
indirectly forced to learn these strategies, so that their parenting styles conform better to
middle-class values.
Next is the question of whether the CWS is the appropriate institution to respond
to those needs caused by, and related, to processes of marginalisation and exclusion.
The increase in children in out-of-home care has many reasons, such as raised
attentiveness towards child abuse and neglect in society, and the accumulation of risk
factors for some families. Nonetheless, with more children being referred to CWS,
professionals have ‘‘access to assess’’ the situations of more children, many of whom
may be in need or are vulnerable. As the CWS might provide wanted services, more
parents are likely to ask for help. Although the CWS provides mainstream services
that aim to redress inequality, it has been argued that CWS workers fail to adequately
consider structural conditions in their assessments and decision-making processes
(Andenæs, 2004; Egelund, 1997). Consequently, problems can be individualised and
psychologised, resulting in a pathological interpretation of the problems of the
children and the parents. In this regard, it has been suggested that the supportive
services should be separated from the protective services (Lonne et al., 2009;
Marthinsen, 2004). It has been pointed out that the need for protection is different
from other needs, hence the various functions of CWS systems should be carefully
considered (Munroe & Martin, 2005).
A possible consequence of an emphasis on support services is that more children
from the lower socioeconomic groups will be accessing the system. Currently, we
know that the proportions of parents who embrace the CWS have increased; indeed,
there are already parents who apply for certain services such as economic support,
relief support, and kindergarten. Therefore, it is not an unlikely scenario that the
overrepresentation of children from the lower socioeconomic groups and families
with poor living conditions may increase because of organisational attention to
them. Consequently, children with poor living conditions are more likely to become
‘‘clients’’ or ‘‘users’’, and their everyday lives may be clientised in several areas. This
might add major benefits to their lives in terms of adequate access to adults and
other children, and improve their life opportunities; however, it might also
Australian Social Work 453
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
stigmatise their positions further through processes of clientification*a‘‘double-
edged sword’’.
Moreover, it is necessary to address whether a general increase in children
receiving supportive services is at the expense of the neediest children, as regards to
the quality of care of children who are already placed in out-of-home care. In the
recent past the quality of care for children in out-of-home care has received critical
attention through the media. It has been argued that it lacks consistency, which has
major implications for children who experience breakdowns with their foster homes
and/or institutions. The CWS has been criticised by some county governors due to
an absence of evaluation of children living in foster homes or institutions. The
follow-up of children in out-of-home care is insufficiently integrated in CWS daily
activities.
Many children become clients because their parents are socioeconomically
marginalised, not because they are necessarily ‘‘in need’’ of protection or treatment.
However, few Norwegian studies have focused on the use of supportive services,
and their outcomes and effects for children and parents. The main body of
literature on CWS is linked to the protective function of the system, which to a
large extent is dealing with children in foster homes and residential care. This
represents a problem because, as demonstrated in this analysis, it is the supportive
function of the system that has significantly expanded. Paradoxically, the welfare
orientation in the Norwegian CWS has not limited the rates of children in out-of-
home care. The rate of children in out-of home care (including voluntarily
placements) in Norway was 7.9 per 1000 children in 2008, compared to 6.2 per
1000 children in Australia for the same year (Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare, 2009). However, these numbers should be compared carefully, as the
systems of out-of-home care are significantly distinct from each other. In Norway,
children can be in out-of-home care up to the age of 23 years. In contrast, Australia
has fewer teenagers and young adults in out-of-home care. Consequently, the fact
that Norway has services for young adults inflates the average numbers of children
in out-of-home care.
Currently, the body of knowledge on support services does not mirror the
developments in the system over the past decades. The result is a lack of
knowledge about those services most frequently used and appreciated by the
families.
Conclusion
This paper has described and analysed the organisation and the current trends of the
Norwegian CWS, which is a family- and welfare-oriented system with several
functions: protecting, preventing, supporting, and equalising. Both aggregated data
and survey data suggest that the system is largely successful in responding to a variety
of needs that CW clients experience. The greatest increase of services is found within
the supportive and preventive functions of the system. The combined data sources
454 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
clearly show that the CWS is able to identify children and parents in marginalised and
vulnerable circumstances. I have argued that the Norwegian CW workers are left with
a high degree of discretion, making the system flexible as regards the range of services
provided. Further, the system is generally successful in terms of parent satisfaction. In
most cases, building bridges with parents is important for successful outcomes for the
child and their family.
On the other hand, a high level of parent satisfaction is not necessarily an
indicator of high child satisfaction. For this reason, I have argued that there are
possible problems of family/parent oriented systems, including the position of the
child, the quality of services for children in out-of-home care, and processes of
clientification of marginalised groups. Either way, the CW clients do experience
various (and in some cases complex) problems that should be appropriately
responded to. However, there is a lack of knowledge about the specific aims, scope,
and outcomes of the supportive services. I have questioned whether the program of
CWS is the most appropriate way of helping children who are not abused or
neglected, but who are still in need of increasing their life opportunities due to poor
living conditions and/or health.
Future research needs to investigate the causes for providing supportive services, as
well as exploring in which ways these services support marginalised children and
parents. We need to know more about the outcomes of supportive actions provided
by the CWS. Also, it is necessary to gain knowledge about the objectives for providing
these services. Are they provided to equalise the opportunities of disadvantaged
children, or are they a governing tool to keep an eye on ‘‘lower class’’ families? In
either event, the current research demonstrates that the Norwegian approach to
promoting the welfare of children has many tangible benefits for those families
receiving assistance.
Acknowledgements
The completion of the survey is a result of cooperation between several central
stakeholders and could not have been conducted without all participants’
willingness to contribute in all phases of the study. Special thanks and respect go
to the parents who shared their experiences in the interviews. The survey was
funded by the Norwegian Ministry of Children, Equality and Inclusion and the
respective Universities participating in the project. My thanks also go to Professor
Bob Lonne, Ingunn T. Ellingsen, and Hilde M. Thrana for helpful advice
concerning this paper.
References
Andenæs, A. (2004). Hvorfor ser vi ikke fattigdommen? Fra en undersøkelse om barn som blir
plassert utenfor hjemmet [Why isn’t poverty recognised? A study examining children in-out-
of-home care]. Nordisk Sosialt Arbeid,1,1933.
Australian Social Work 455
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009). Child protection Australia 20072008. Child
welfare series no. 45. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2010). Child protection Australia 20082009. Child
welfare series no. 47. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (2009). Inverting the pyramid. Enhancing
systems for protecting children. Woden: Australian Research Alliance for Children and
Youth.
Bradshaw, J., & Terum, L. I. (1997). How Nordic is the Nordic model? Social assistance in a
comparative perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare,6, 247256.
Cameron, G., & Freymond, N. (2006). Towards positive systems of child and family welfare:
International comparisons of child protection, family service, and community caring systems.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Clifford, G. (2006). Leveka˚r, ulikhet og utsatte barn: Behovsbasert evaluering av poliklinisk barne- og
ungdomspsykiatri og kommunalt barnevern [Living conditions, inequality and vulnerable
children: Needbased evaluation of the policlinical child -and youth psychiatry and the child
welfare services]. Trondheim: RBUP Midt-Norge.
Clifford, G., & Lichtwarck, W. (2010). Modernisering i barnevernet. Ideologi, kontekst og kompetanse
[Modernisation of the child welfare services: Ideology, context and competence]. Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget.
Commonwealth of Australia (2009). Protecting children is everyone’s business. National Framework
for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009 2020. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.
fahcsia.gov.au/SA/FAMILIES/PUBS/FRAMEWORK_PROTECTING_CHILDREN/Pages/default.
aspx
Dale, P. (2004). ‘‘Like a fish in a bowl’’: Parents’ perceptions of child protection services. Child Abuse
Review,13, 137157.
Drugli, M. B., & Marthinsen, E. (1998). En undersøkelse av barnevernet i Trondheim: En
gjennomgang av inntaksprosedyrer i distriktene og 1000 meldte barns karriere i perioden
1994/95 [A study of child welfare services in Trondheim: An examination of intake-procedures in
the districts and 1000 referred children’s careers during 1994/95]. Dragvoll: Barnevernets
utviklingssenter i Midt-Norge.
Egelund, T. (1997). Beskyttelse af barndommen: Socialforvaltningers risikovurdering og indgreb [The
protection of childhood: Risk assessment and intervention of Child Welfare Services].
København: Hans Reitzels forlag.
Egelund, T., Andersen, D., Hestbæk, A.-D., Lausten, M., Knudsen, L., Olsen, R. F., & Gerstoft, F.
(2008). Anbragte børns udvikling og vilka˚r: resultater fra SFI’s forløbsundersøgelser af a˚rgang
1995 [The development and conditions of children in -out-of-home care: Results from SFI’s
longitudinal study of year 1995]. København: SFI.
Egelund, T., & Sundell, K. (2001). Til barnets bedste: Undersøgelser af børn og familier en
forskningsoversigt [In the best interest of the child: Studies of children and families a review].
København: Hans Reitzels forlag.
Ericsson, K. (2000). Social control and emancipation? Ambiguities in child welfare. Journal of
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention,1,1626.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Eydal, G. B., & Kro¨ger, T. (2009). Nordic family policies: Constructing contexts for social work with
families. In H. Forsberg & T. Kro¨ ger (Eds.), Social work and child welfare politics through
Nordic lenses (pp. 1128). Portland: Policy Press.
Fauske, H., Lichtwarck, W., Marthinsen, E., Willumsen, E., Clifford, G., & Kojan, B. H. (2009).
Barnevernet pa˚ ny kurs? Det nye barnevernet: Et forsknings-og utviklingsprosjekt i barnevernet
[Child welfare services taking a new course? The new child welfare services: A research and
development project]. Bodø: Nordlandsforskning.
456 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
Forsberg, H., & Kro¨ger, T. (2009). Social work within "a welfare paradise". An introduction. In H.
Forsberg & T. Kro¨ger (Eds.), Social work and child welfare politics Through Nordic lenses
(pp. 110). Portland: Policy Press.
Freeman, P., & Hunt, J. (1999). Parental perspectives on care proceedings. London: The Stationary
Office.
Gjerustad, C., Grønningsæter, A., Kvinge, T., Mossige, S., & Vindegg, J. (2006). Bare fantasien setter
grenser? Om kommunenes bruk av hjelpetiltak i barnevernet [Is fantasy the only limitation?
Regarding municipalitie’s use of supporting services in child welfare services]. Oslo: FAFO.
Hagen, G. (2001). Barnevernets historie: Om makt og avmakt i det 20. a˚rhundret [The history of child
welfare services: Power and powerlessness in the 20th century]. Oslo: Akribe.
Havnen, K. R., Christensen, Ø., & Havik, T. (1998). Na˚r gir barnevernet hjelp? Kartlegging av
barnevernstenesta sine beslutninger i meldings- og undersøkelsessaker [When is help from child
welfare services provided? An examination of child welfare service’s decisions in referrals and
investigations]. Bergen: Barnevernets utviklingssenter pa˚Vestlandet.
Havnen, K. R., Jacobsen, R., & Stormark, K. M. (2009). Mental health problems in Norwegian
school children placed out-of-home: The importance of family risk factors. Child Care in
Practice,15, 235250.
Healy, K., & Oltedal, S. (2010). An institutional comparison of child protection systems in Australia
and Norway focused on workforce retention. Journal of Social Policy, 39, 255274.
Hearn, J., Po¨so¨, T., Smith, C., White, S., & Korpinen, J. (2004). What is child protection? Historical
and methodological issues in comparative research on child protection. International Journal
of Social Welfare,13,2841.
Holland, S. (2001). Representing children in child protection assessments. Childhood,8, 322339.
International Federation of Social Workers (2005, October 15). Ethics in social work, statement of
principles. retrieved january 5, 2010, from http://www.ifsw.org/f38000032.html
Humphreys, C., Bromfield, L., Harries, M., Healy, K., Lonne, B., Mendes, P., McHugh, M., &
Sheehan, R. (2009). Shifting the child protection juggernaut to earlier intervention. Children
Australia,34,59.
Khoo, E. G., Hyvo¨nen, U., & Nygren, L. (2003). Gate keeping in child welfare: A comparative study
of intake decision making by social workers in Canada and Sweden. Child Welfare League of
America,82, 507532.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Lonne, B., Parton, N., Thomson, J., & Harries, M. (2009). Reforming child protection. London:
Routledge.
Marthinsen, E. (2004). En radikal analyse av barnevernet [A radical analysis of the Child welfare
services]. Norges Barnevern,2,313.
Munroe, E. & Martin, C. (2005). Where has child protection gone? The political quarterly,76, 439
445.
Nadim, M., & Nielsen, R. A. (2009). Barnefattigdom i Norge. Omfang, utvikling og geografisk
variasjon [Childpoverty in Norway: Scope, development and geographic variation]. Oslo: Fafo.
Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion (2009). NOU 2009:22 Det du gjør, gjør det helt.
Bedre samordning av tjenester for barn og unge [What you do, do it fully. Improved coordination
of services for children and youth]. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste. Retrieved February 8,
2010 from http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/bld/dok/nouer/2009/nou-2009-22.html?id
587673
Sandberg, K., Høstmælingen, N., & Kjørholt, E. (2008). Barnekonvensjonen. Barns rettigheter i Norge
[The convention on the rights of the child: Childrens rights in Norway]. Oslo: Universitets-
forlaget.
Statistics Norway (2009, July 16). More investigation cases [Tables]. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/03/barneverng_en/
Australian Social Work 457
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
Statistics Norway (2010, January 1). Population, by age and county [Table]. Retrieved February 2,
2010, from http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/folkemengde_en/tab-2010-03-11-
01-en.html
Sundell, K., & Karlsson, U. (1999). Social barnava˚rd i tio svenska kommuner: Vilka barn bero¨rs, hur
utreds de och vad ha¨nder med dem? [Family Services in ten Swedish municipalities: What
children are involved, how are they assessed and what are the outcomes?]. Stockholm:
Socialtja¨nstfo¨rvaltningen.
Thorpe, R., & Thomson, J. (2003). The importance of parents in the lives of children in the care
system. Children Australia,28,2531.
Thrana, H. M. (2008). Vil jeg bestemme? Om barns og ungdoms medvirkning [Do I want to decide?
The participation of children and youth]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Tjelflaat, T. (2001). Child protection in Norway: Changing ideologies. Journal of Social Work,2,82
90.
458 B. H. Kojan
Downloaded by [Hoegskolen i Soer-Troendelag] at 23:54 12 April 2015
