Search

Purpose Schools can be an arena for age appropriate and objective information about the support families can get from the child protection services (CPS). There is reason to believe that many children have misconceptions about the CPS and are afraid to talk to the social workers who investigates if there is reason to be concerned about a child’s well-being. The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of misconceptions about child protection services (CPS) among school children in Norway. Method A questionnaire containing 10 statements that measure children’s misconceptions and attitudes about the CPS was developed and distributed to 215 children aged 11–15 years old (M = 12.2 years). Results The results showed that 10.7% of the sample have a misconception about children being removed from their homes by CPS and that 17% of the sample had a negative perception of the CPS in general. Discussion The child might wrongfully get the impression that it is at risk of being removed from the parents. Participation in assessment and planning may be challenging for a child under such conditions. Therefore, it is important that adults who work with children are aware that these misconceptions are quite common, also among youth. Implications The prevalence of misconceptions about CPS among children in the general population as well as those in contact with CPS indicate a need for age-appropriate information. If such misconceptions are prevented it might be easier for children to reach out for help if they or somebody they know, are subject to abuse or neglect.

In this study, we look at the decision to provide services following a child protection investigation in Norway. More specifically, we want to look at variability at the case level and at the agency level in order to identify factors that may impact a decision to provide services.The study was designed as a cross-sectional archive study that was carried out retrospectively. Included predictors for service provision were presence of abuse, and risk factors related to child, parental and family function. Agency predictors were referral rate and metropolitan location. Variation in service provision was sectioned into case level (N = 883) variation and agency level (N = 16) variation. Five nested multilevel models were estimated. Service provision for families following a child protection investigation was on average 38.4% in the sample. Among the 16 agencies, it varied between 21.9 and 60.0%. This variation is mostly explained by case variables. The strongest were physical abuse (OR = 1.37) and neglect (OR = 1.18). There is evidence for agency differences with respect to the types of cases being referred. Differences in agency thresholds for service provision when controlling for the referral reason seem to be quite small.