Figure - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
The legitimacy of welfare state institutions is a key question in public policy research. In this study we examine population’s confidence in child protection systems, the role of institutional context and moral alignment. Analysing representative samples of survey data (N=6,043) of citizens in six European countries (Czechia, England, Finland, Nor...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... also ran an OLS regression analysis, modelling each of the five statements and the latent variable, controlling for country-level variation, using Finland as the reference country (Table 5). In the correlation between confidence in the CPS and socio-demographic variables, four variables have some effect. ...Citations
... Instead, public opinion and supporters, linking a crisis with flaws in the system ('t Hart and Tindall 2009;Boin, 't Hart, and McConnell 2009) are crucial. This is in line with Loen and Skivenes (2023), who revealed that lagging reform efforts may be related to the sensitive nature of child rights protection policy and societal division in this regard. While a change of government could itself be treated as an exogenous shock facilitating policy change (Jenkins-Smith et al. 2018), this was not the case as the definition and prohibition of violence against children stalled in the newly elected parliament and was pushed forward only after the death of Matukas. ...
This paper examines the dynamics of policy change following crises within adversarial policy subsystems. Building on the Advocacy Coalitions Framework (ACF), the study empirically tests two mechanisms of policy change (or lack thereof), focusing on cases from the Lithuanian child rights protection domain (2016–2020). Analyzing three crises, ranging from no policy change to minor and major alterations, the research contributes to understanding crisis‐driven policy dynamics. This study highlights the importance of pre‐existing policy solutions, which can be advanced by coalitions following a crisis if the balance of resources shifts in their favor. It also suggests that negotiated agreements may arise between coalitions with similar resources. Finally, the research underscores the role of “strategic inaction” when no policy change occurs despite shifts in resources, due to the perceived costs of action outweighing the benefits. Additionally, the paper expands ACF application to the underrepresented Central and Eastern Europe region, shedding light on sustainability challenges in cases of major policy change after the crisis.
... There is a range of views and normative sentiments about what the threshold for legitimate interventions by the state in the family should be, what constitutes maltreatment, or what the best interests of a child might be, just to mention a few discussions (see e.g. Berrick et al., 2019Berrick et al., , 2022aBerrick et al., , 2022bBerrick et al., , 2023aBurns et al., 2021;Helland et al., 2018;Loen and Skivenes, 2023;Skivenes, 2021). However, there is limited research that seeks to explain and understand people's views towards child protection, and differences and similarities between countries. ...
... Confidence is perceived as an essential component of statecitizen interactions (see Loen and Skivenes, 2023 for an overview). A range of studies find that when citizens trust authorities to act in certain ways, they perceive the actions of the authorities more positively and are more likely to accept and comply with the policies and decisions (see e.g., Jackson and Kuha (2016) (2015) on welfare state support; Loen (2024) on child maltreatment reporting). ...
... The child protection services must be trusted by the population, that is, the expectations from citizens about certain outcomes must be upheld by the child protection system. Previous research has established that confidence in child protection services vary across countries and across different demographic groups (Juhasz and Skivenes, 2017;Loen and Skivenes, 2023;Benbenishty, 2022a, 2022b). We thus include confidence in the child protection system as a control variable. ...
This article examines the role individuals’ basic values about responsibility, uncertainty and child rights, have on willingness to accept state intervention in a family in a potential child protection situation. A key area within social sciences is how and when it is justified for governments to restrict individual freedom, for example allow authorities to intervene in the private sphere to protect a child from potential harm. In this article data from representative samples of the populations in six countries – Norway, Finland, England, Poland, Romania, and Czechia (total n = 6031) are analysed. Two main explanations are tested, first if individuals’ basic values explain willingness to restrict freedom, and second, if institutional context explains country differences. The results show that individuals who favour parental responsibility, accept uncertainty, and who have high ambitions on child rights, also favour interventions in the family to protect a child. However, sociodemographic variables nuance these findings. Institutional context sheds light on country differences. Our analysis show that people overall are positive to child protection interventions, and our findings accord with results within welfare state- and child protectionsystem research and provide increased knowledge about the relationship and connection between people’s value base and support for welfare policies.
... This research contributes to the scarce literature on public opinion about child protection and care options (e.g., Pösö, Skivenes, and Thoburn 2021;Skivenes and Benbenishty 2022a;Skivenes and Thoburn 2017), and the literature on the effects of a rights orientation and core values on policy preferences and welfare views (e.g., Berrick, Skivenes, and Roscoe 2022b;Schwartz et al. 2001). Furthermore, the study contributes to the literature on policy feedback and the role of institutional context to understand policy preferences (e.g., Loen and Skivenes 2023;Skivenes and Benbenisthy, 2022a,b;Svallfors 2012;Valarino et al. 2018). ...
This study examines a representative sample of adults in California (USA) and Norway, and their attitudes toward adoption versus foster care in a child protection case. The results show that a majority of people favour adoption for a child who has been removed due to maltreatment and cannot be reunified with birth parents. The study examines if people's rights orientation, favouring children or adults, or favouring birth parents or adoptive parents, or their institutional context explain their preferences about long‐term care options. Data material consist of representative samples of the population in California (USA) and Norway ( n = 2222), using a vignette survey design. Findings suggest that individuals with a child rights position favour adoption, but attitudes about birth parents' and adoptive parents' rights are not related to care option choices. Institutional context, anchored in policy feedback literature, partly explains the preference for adoption and the population's rights orientation. Further studies are necessary to confirm the role of rights attitudes and institutional context.
... Increasing backlash against CPS from various social institutions and groups (Stang, 2018) warrants deeper understanding of the factors associated with the legitimacy of CPS. However, prior research either on, for instance, when the child welfare interventions occur (Bennett et al., 2022) or support for child welfare interventions varies Loen & Skivenes, 2023;Skivenes et al., 2023). Comparative research on legitimacy of CPS and its origins is very nascent. ...
... Another stream of research indicates that trust in CPS varies according to different child welfare typologies, with systems focused on child wellbeing garnering higher levels of trust, followed by those emphasizing family services and risk-oriented approaches (Skivenes & Benbenishty, 2022). Moreover, additional research demonstrates a relatively elevated level of public confidence in CPS centred on family services compared to risk-oriented CPS (Loen & Skivenes, 2023). This study takes a further step by examining the relationship between perceived performance and trust in CPS through a comparative analysis of the English and Norwegian contexts. ...
... Like the police and social services, CPS serves to safeguard children from abuse and aid vulnerable families in times of need. A CPS with higher trust is more likely to receive support for intervening in family matters (Loen & Skivenes, 2023) and achieving compliance with their directives. On the other hand, lower levels of trust create challenges in achieving the fundamental goal of ensuring a fulfilling life for children, regardless of their family situations, including protection from abuse and neglect (Burns et al., 2021;Skivenes & Benbenisthy, 2022). ...
Research on the relationship between performance and trust is commonplace in social sciences, yet trust in child protection systems (CPS) remains an emerging area of study. This research delves into how three dimensions of performance – distributive justice, procedural fairness, and functional effectiveness – affect trust in CPS in England and Norway, drawing insights from organisational and social psychology literature. A cross-sectional survey collected data from 981 individuals in England and 1,140 in Norway. Results suggest that procedural fairness and the competences indicator of functional effectiveness significantly and positively impact trust in CPS in both countries. Resources significantly influence trust in Norway’s CPS, while distributive justice has no impact on trust in either country’s CPS. These findings hold theoretical and practical implications for trust in CPS.
... A further example is the analysis by Loen and Skivenes (2023), who build on the same distinction between "risk-oriented" (found in Czechia, Poland and Romania), and "family service-oriented" CPSs (developed by England, Finland and Norway). In the first type, the emphasis is placed on keeping children safe, the state is responsible for a limited number of aspects and there is a "relatively high threshold for interventions" (Loen and Skivenes 2023: 4). ...
... In the first type, the emphasis is placed on keeping children safe, the state is responsible for a limited number of aspects and there is a "relatively high threshold for interventions" (Loen and Skivenes 2023: 4). The second type professes a lower threshold for intervention, focusing on aiding families so that their situation can improve, while being a system where the state takes responsibility for comparatively more aspects (Loen and Skivenes 2023). Against this background, the authors find a relationship between the type of CPS in place and people's confidence in the institutions responsible for child protection, with higher levels in countries that developed a family-service oriented system. ...
... Insights regarding accountability are valuable to a long-standing debate regarding the legitimacy and trust in the child protection system (Gilbert et al., 2011;Loen & Skivenes, 2023). ...
... Comparison across countries seems promising regarding the role of risk and protective factors in care order reasoning. Here one could focus on the effect of attitudes and values, especially when studied in parallel with studies on population's attitude toward child protection interventions (e.g., Berrick et al., 2022;Loen & Skivenes, 2023). ...
This thesis discusses decisions that significantly impact individuals and are necessary to fulfill states’ obligation to protect children from harm: care orders for newborn children. Professional decision-makers make these decisions on behalf of the state, which must comply with laws and policies created by democratically elected policymakers. The grounds for these decisions are discretionary assessments made by the decision-makers, who must follow the equal treatment principle by treating similar cases similarly and different cases differently. Equal treatment is crucial for justice and for people's trust in, and the legitimacy of both the child protection and legal system. Equal treatment is required for these abstract principles, but also for a very concrete concern: children should enjoy equal levels of protection. How well they are safeguarded should not vary a lot or be arbitrary. Given the delegation of decision-making power and discretion involved, and the closed decision-making arena they are made in, it is crucial that the decisions are justified and reasoned in a manner that demonstrates their legitimacy.
There are huge knowledge gaps regarding how decision-makers evaluate and legitimize interventions into families. This thesis aims to investigate such discretionary decisions by analyzing and critically appraising written judgments of care orders for newborn children. The judgments are collected from Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, Ireland, Germany, Norway, and Spain, and are a unique and valuable data set. The findings are applicable to all decisions through which social policy is implemented.
The following research questions guide the analysis:
• Are similar cases equally reasoned and justified?
• Are the accounts the decision-makers provide suitable to hold them accountable, and what are possible implications for the democratic system?
• What are possible implications of my findings for the predictability of case treatment
The main focus of the thesis is on equal treatment, however, there are other important principles that need to be considered while making care orders for newborns and implementing policies in general. One of these principles is predictability, which means that citizens should reasonably be able to predict the legal consequences of their actions. Part of predictability is knowing which cases will be treated similarly and which will be treated differently. Predictability is a crucial aspect of the rule of law and is necessary for the legitimacy of the state's interventions in the private sphere of the citizens. This thesis assesses predictability based on an appraisal of the judgments’ quality.
I will also discuss the concept of accountability, which, much like predictability, here is derived from judgments and depends on their quality. Accountability is crucial because of the black hole of democracy, where care order decisions are made. Good accounts of how and why decisions were made are a vital precondition for holding decision-makers accountable for differences in the treatment of similar cases. Both predictability and accountability are essential not only for individual decisions but also for the system's legitimacy as a whole.
The thesis comprises three articles, where each studies equal treatment from a different angle:
- The 1st article homes in on how risk and protective factors are assessed
- The 2nd article compares the treatment of similar cases with different outcomes
- The 3rd article analyzes how discretionary legal standards are used
In each of these articles, I map and show the reasoning and justification by the decision-makers. I look for patterns of similarities and differences through document analysis of the written newborn care order judgments. Based on this analysis, I assess the fulfillment of the equal treatment obligation as documented in the judgments and discuss possible explanations for why there were differences in treatment. In addition, I critically appraise the quality of the judgments and discuss the implications of this appraisal for accountability and predictability.
I have found that although written judgments fulfill and facilitate equal treatment, predictability, and decision-makers' accountability to some extent, they have certain weaknesses that must be addressed.
Regarding equal treatment, I map a pattern where similar concerns are relevant, but the assessment of their impact on the case differs. I concluded that the discretionary evaluations made by decision-makers regarding social facts, such as aspects of a family's situation and the parents' behavior, sometimes lead to different outcomes, even in similar cases. This creates a problem, especially when it's unclear how the decision-makers arrived at their conclusion. In my discussion, I explore the advantages and disadvantages of implementing a checklist to limit decision-maker discretion by assessing specific elements in the decision-making process. I conclude that if such a checklist is correctly designed, it can lead to more equal treatment and better decisions.
Appraising the judgment's quality highlights several weaknesses (although some strengths are also present). Firstly, predictability is compromised by the judgments’ quality. The missing descriptions of concrete weighing and balancing that were done are particularly problematic as they are crucial for predicting the treatment of future cases. It is precisely this discretionary reasoning that can threaten equal treatment. In this regard, I have discussed whether eliminating the decision-maker's discretion by turning discretionary standards into rules would benefit predictability. However, I have found that even if one could create enough rules (which is unrealistic in itself), the errors that the rules would lead to, and their associated costs would be unacceptable in a democratic society.
Holding decision-makers accountable is a challenge due to the shortcomings in the judgments. It becomes difficult for the public and concerned parties to understand and react to the decision when it’s unclear why they decided as they did. Treatment of similar cases can vary, but poor accounts make differentiating between abuse of power and reasonable disagreement a daunting task. Additionally, democratic control over policy implementation suffers, and learning opportunities are missed. To address this issue, I explore imposing higher requirements on decision-makers to include more details in their judgments. I believe that this approach would improve accountability, but only if the requirements are met in practice. I also highlight the improvements in the quality of Norwegian judgments, which have become more detailed and reasoned after receiving criticism from the ECtHR.
The thesis contributes to the literature on discretion and equal treatment by mapping reasoning and justification in discretionary decisions. Additionally, the thesis provides valuable knowledge on how predictability and accountability are fulfilled in practice. The methodological contribution relates to using written judgments of child protection cases – a very valuable but challenging material. The thesis contributes to empirical knowledge by casting light on an intrusive intervention usually hidden from the public.
... This wave of criticism could also make professionals hesitant to report cases to the CWS due to uncertainty about the system's efficacy. ECEC professionals' skepticism of the CWS may also be a reflection of a relative lack of trust in the CWS in the general Norwegian population (Loen & Skivenes, 2023). Continued improvement of CWS and improved cooperation between ECEC professionals and CWS can mitigate these barriers. ...
The current study examined personal barriers that can prevent early childhood education and care (ECEC) professionals from reporting concerns of child maltreatment to child welfare services (CWS). The objectives were to identify different types of personal barriers and to examine differences in reporting according to employee characteristics. Norwegian ECEC professionals (N = 1369; 92% women; mean age, 44 years [SD = 11]) from 170 kindergartens completed e-questionnaires with 25 questions about personal barriers to reporting concerns of child maltreatment and questions about their own personal characteristics. Four barrier factors that underly the 25 different barriers were confirmed with factor analysis. The most endorsed personal barrier factor was “Negative consequences for the child,” which predicted barriers related to fear of negative consequences of reporting (e.g., to CWS). The second most important were the “Relationships” factor (barriers related to concerns about relationships with the child or parents), and the “Competence” factor (fear of misunderstanding and being unsure about guidelines). The least endorsed barrier factor (“Coworkers”) included fear of what superiors and coworkers might think. In general, ECEC professionals with less formal training and less work experience reported more personal barriers to reporting concerns of child maltreatment. The results are consistent with studies involving other professional groups. Better collaboration between ECEC providers and CWS is important to prevent child maltreatment. Future efforts to improve the detection and reporting of concerns of child maltreatment could consider focusing specifically on professionals with little formal training and little work experience.
(open access: https://hdl.handle.net/11250/3059049) ---- In this thesis I investigate state interventions in the family, asking how they are justified, what the characteristics and quality of these justifications are, and what the Norwegian population’s attitudes are in cases of potential abuse. Three research papers constitute the analytical and empirical basis of the findings and discussion, from content analyses of judicial decisions in cases of child protection family interventions, to a population survey about attitudes towards potential violence and recommended child protection interventions. ---- The legitimacy of state interventions may be threatened by the unequal treatment of families, lacking neutrality in the use and assessments of evidence and testimonies, and if the state’s practices are inconsistent with societal norms and values. By comparing migrant and non-migrant child protection cases the thesis shows that the County Social Welfare Boards appear to balance any potential biases in the population with a largely equal treatment of families. Child welfare professionals’ testimonies and reports receive thorough treatment and consideration in the decision-makers’ accounts, with a substantial presence of and weight given to child welfare professionals. ---- The thesis combines qualitative content analysis of 104 written judicial decisions about care orders in migrant and non-migrant families, with a quantitative survey vignette experiment conducted on a representative sample of the Norwegian population (n=1,104). The content analysis produced findings that were interesting to investigate in a survey experiment. This combination contextualises the content analysis of written judicial decisions by outlining population attitudes towards potential abuse. This outline enables the thesis to investigate the criticism of the Norwegian child protection services in relation to decision-makers’ justifications and population attitudes in cases of familial violence. ---- Paper I investigates how decisions about care orders of children are justified in cases about familial violence. It is an in-depth analysis of 94 written care order decisions from the Norwegian County Social Welfare Boards. The data material consists of all publicly available care order decisions about familial violence from 2016 and 2017. We examine decision-makers arguments, comparing cases of migrant and non-migrant families to see if there are differences in the justifications. The analysis shows that justifications are rooted in a pragmatic discourse focusing on risk levels and drawing on empirical evidence. Additionally, there is a pragmatic-ethical discourse rooted in the decision-makers assessment of the parents’ ability to change their behaviour and meet the children’s needs, underscored by parental denial of violence and their blaming of the children. This serves the decision-makers in justifying whether it is possible to attain the necessary level of care for the children. We find only a few differences between migrant and non-migrant cases. In migrant cases there is more evidence of strong direct violence, and parents’ denial is more prevalently used in the decision-makers argumentation. In non-migrant cases, justifications based on the consequences for the child are more prevalent. ---- Paper II investigates how disciplinary evidence is used in care order proceedings when children are considered for foster care placement in cases of familial violence. It investigates the factors considered important, and how the decision-makers use and evaluate disciplinary evidence. It is an in-depth analysis of 104 published care order decisions from the Norwegian County Social Welfare Boards. The analysis shows that the evidence revolves around children’s and parents’ social functioning, the care context, and topics about how parents and children relate to each other. The decision-makers use evidence to determine whether the child’s situation is harmful, whether support services are viable, and whether a care order is in the child’s best interests. The decision-makers draw unevenly on evidence regarding legal requirements, and they predominantly defer to expert authority. However, there is also evidence of independent reasoning, where deferral to the epistemic authority of the experts appears rational and based on independent reasoning. This is shown through evaluative and critical assessments and scrutiny of the disciplinary evidence. ---- Paper III investigates the influence of experts on public attitudes towards familial violence and child protection interventions. It also investigates whether public attitudes towards familial violence and child protection interventions are biased against migrant families. The investigation is conducted using a survey vignette experiment on the Norwegian population. The focus is on acceptance of psychological and indirect violence to determine whether acceptance is affected by causal claims credited to experts, and whether these factors influence the population’s recommended intervention. The analysis shows that there is a small but statistically significant differential in acceptance regarding violence in the children’s environment in migrant and non-migrant families. The study contextualises criticism against the Norwegian child protection services that claims migrant children risk living longer with violent conditions in Norway, as well as claims about a lack of cultural sensitivity. Judicial decision-makers acting in this environment must balance allegations of violence with societal norms and the law, having to ensure equality and not legitimising potential discriminating attitudes. ---- The discussion concentrates on three categories of findings. First, justificatory reasons for intervening. Decision-makers navigate testimonies, evidence, and societal norms about childhood, parenting, and attitudes about violence. There is a differential focus on the consequences for children and the parents’ denial of violence in non-migrant and migrant families respectively. Also, there are differences in the prevalence of violence variants in migrant and non-migrant families, and a potential difference in the population’s attitude towards potential abuse in migrant and non-migrant families. Thus, further research of the relationship between population attitudes, types of violence, and notification to the child protection services is recommended. Second, epistemic accountability. Evidence from child welfare professionals appear as key epistemic support to decision-makers, potentially overshadowing the voice of both the children and their parents. Further research is needed on the relationship between disciplinary evidence and the testimonies of children and parents. Similarly, more research is needed on the roles of different kinds of professions providing evidence, to disentangle the roles of independently engaged experts and professions employed by state welfare services. Third, the role of violence in the state’s accounts of family intervention. Violence is unacceptable, however population attitudes towards violent and violent-adjacent actions and behaviours appear to be subject to variations. Thus, research into the nuances of how violence is understood and defined by the population, professionals, and the state may shed further light on the acceptance of state interventions.
Public service programs are important for helping communities grow socially. They handle problems people face. That said, there could be some issues with these programs. Some say using these services too much can make people depend too much on government help. This might stop them from growing in the long run. Critics of extensive public intervention argue that it can create a cycle of dependency on government support, hindering long-term sustainable growth. This Study aims to examine the nexus between public service interventions and social development by conducting a systematic literature synthesis. The Study will analyze existing research and literature to understand the impact of public service interventions on social development outcomes. This Study uses a Systematic Literature Review methodology to identify relevant studies and extract key findings. The Data is taken from the Scopus Database and identifies several country cases where public service interventions have been implemented to address social development challenges. The Study result reveals that public service interventions can have both positive and negative effects on social development. While public service interventions have been successful in addressing immediate social challenges such as poverty alleviation and access to basic services, they may also inadvertently create dependency and inhibit long-term sustainable development. The Finding implies that there is a need for careful and strategic planning of public service interventions to ensure positive social development outcomes. Furthermore, the Study highlights the importance of considering community participation and empowerment in public service interventions to foster sustainable development.
Although there is an expansive literature on public attitudes towards the welfare state, we know comparatively little about public attitudes toward child protection. Gauging public opinion about the state's role in protecting children is complicated by the contested ideas that underlie the field. Child protection lies at the nexus between competing values about state obligations to allow unfettered parental freedom or to permit constraints on some parental behaviors. At issue is also the notion of balancing the individual rights of the parties involved: parents and children. Similar to the larger welfare state literature, public attitudes about child protection may be shaped by core human values. This study includes representative samples of the public in Norway and California (n = 2148), countries that are commonly viewed as representative of social democratic and liberal welfare state regimes. Respondents reviewed a vignette portraying a child at risk of harm and were asked a series of questions to gauge whether and/or how the state might constrain the parent's behavior, questions pertaining to the rights of children, and their views about core human values. Findings indicate that residents of Norway were more likely to favor the values of security and equal rights, and Californians more likely to favor the value of self-direction. Contrary to the larger body of welfare state literature which suggests that human values help explain public attitudes about welfare provisions, in general, this study did not find that human values generally explained differences in country attitudes toward constrained parenting or toward children's rights. Findings offer an exploratory first step in expanding notions about child protection as nested in welfare states.
