Standardised practice in Norwegian child welfare services: How standardisation influences professional practice in child welfare services

Authors

Keywords: child welfare services, standardisation

Synopsis

This thesis explores how standardisation in Norwegian child welfare services (CWS) influences CWS professionals and practices. CWS is a complex field, which has been criticised for poor decision-making and for not putting effective measures into place for families in need. CWS practice is also criticised for not being informed by research. As a response to these criticisms, we have witnessed an increased use of standards and standardisation to ensure effective and accountable services of high quality. Consequently, the use of standardised assessment forms and standardised intervention programmes has been on the rise, in Norway and internationally. This has led to considerable debate concerning the tension between standardisation as a tool of control and professional practice involving discretion. Critical voices have argued that standardisation limits professionals’ discretion and restricts their ability to use specialised abstract knowledge, a key feature of professional work. Much research on standardisation has focused on effects of standardised practices with a top-down approach. Hence, there is a need for research on the ‘ongoing work’ that frontline professionals engage in and how frontline practice is influenced by standardisation, which is the aim of this study.

This thesis aims to expand the body of knowledge on how standardisation affects professional practice. This is done by investigating how CWS professionals use two standardised tools commonly used in Norway, namely the Kvello Assessment Framework tool (KF) and Circle of Security - parenting (COS-P). The overall research question is: How do CWS professionals become carriers of standardised practice and how does standardised practice influence the professional role? To answer the research question, a case study design was chosen, the case being standardised practice. The data stem from fieldwork, client documents and interviews with CWS professionals in two child welfare offices. In order to explore how the frontline professionals respond to the standardised tools, the analysis draws on institutional theory and the theory of profession.

The body of this thesis consists of three articles. The first article examines how the professionals adapt the two standardised tools into the local practice. Findings are based on observation (45 days), client documents (15) and interviews with 49 participants, including frontline professionals and managers. The findings show that new rules for practice and knowledge emerged, but that the professionals modified the tools for ethical and practical reasons. Consequently, the professionals were active agents through the exercise of discretion. The second article explores how the two standardised tools influence the professional role in relation to CWS work. The analysis is based on interviews with 31 frontline professionals (individual and group interviews). The findings show that the standardised tools enhanced professionals’ competence but also challenged their professional knowledge base, reflective practice and accountability through a more rule-following approach. Moreover, the article points to the potential of doing families injustice. The third article examines how use of the KF influences assessment work in CWS.

The data stem from fieldwork, client documents and interviews with 32 CWS professionals, including frontline professionals and managers. While the two first articles focus on both standardised tools, the third article pays particular attention to the KF. Findings revealed that the KF tool led to a proceduralist approach in assessment work, placing demands on focus and activities, as well as interpretative demands upon the professionals. Moreover, lack of transparency in decision-making processes was identified, with a heavy reliance on detecting risk factors. A key question raised in the article is whether the proceduralisation of CWS practice leads to better CWS practices.

The thesis expands our knowledge about how standardisation influences professional practice in CWS. By focusing on ‘ongoing work’ performed by the frontline professionals, this thesis provides knowledge on how professionals are also active agents. Although a procedural rule- following approach seemed to dominate among the professionals that took part in this study, some also questioned the standards and took action to alter them with regard to their professional ethos. Moreover, the study contributes knowledge on how standardisation influences professionals’ discretionary space, the knowledge base and the professional role in a CWS practice context. As this thesis shows, standardisation can support CWS practice; however, the use of standardised tools alone will not solve the complexity of CWS work.

Author Biography

Marina Snipsøyr Sletten

PhD Fellow
University in Stavanger
PhD Programme in Social Sciences
Department of Social Studies
marina.sletten@hiof.no

References

Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions : an essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226189666.001.0001

Abbott, A. (1991). The future of professions: Occupation and expertise in the age of organization. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 8(1), 17-42.

Act of 17 July 1992 No. 100 relating to Child Welfare Services (1992).

Alfandari, R. (2017). Systemic barriers to effective utilization of decision making tools in child protection practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 207-215.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.030

Almklov, P. G., Ulset, G., & Røyrvik, J. (2017). Standardisering og måling i barnevernet. In T. Larsen & E. Røyrvik (Eds.), Trangen til å telle : objektivering, måling og standardisering som samfunnspraksis. Oslo: Scandinavian Academic Press.

Atkinson, P., & Coffey, A. (2011). Analysing Documentary Realities. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research : issues of theory, method and practice (3rd ed., pp. 77-92). Los Angeles: Sage.

Bache-Hansen, E. (2009). Hva innebærer et kunnskapsbasert barnevern? Fontene Forskning, 2/09(2), 4-16. Retrieved from http://fonteneforskning.no/?app=NeoDirect&com=15/26463/0/2/1017f31307

Banks, S. (2009). Professional values and accountabilities. In R. Adams, L. Dominelli, & M. Payne (Eds.), Critical practice in social work (2nd ed., pp. 32-43). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-36586-5_3

Barlow, J., Fisher, J. D., & Jones, D. (2012). Systematic review of models of analysing significant harm (Report No.DFE-RR199). Retrieved from Oxford University: Oxford

Bartelink, C., Van Yperen, T. A., & Ten Berge, I., J. (2015). Deciding on child maltreatment: A literature review on methods that improve decision-making. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 142-153.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.002

Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals' child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 63-75.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015

Bergmark, A., & Lundström, T. (2006). Mot en evidensbaserad praktik? Om färdriktningen i socialt arbete. Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift, 13, 99-113. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-19193

https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2006.13.2.2605

Bergmark, A., & Lundström, T. (2011). Guided or independent? Social workers, central bureaucracy and evidence-based practice. European Journal of Social Work, 14(3), 323-337.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13691451003744325

Bergmark, Å., & Lundström, T. (2002). Education, practice and research. Knowledge and attitudes to knowledge of Swedish social workers. Social Work Education, 21(3), 359-373.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470220136920

Bonner, A., & Tolhurst, G. (2002). Insider-outsider perspectives of participant observation. Nurse Researcher, 9(4), 7-19.

https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2002.07.9.4.7.c6194

Boris, N. W., Brandtzæg, I., & Torsteinson, S. (2020, 13.02.2020). Re: Forvirrende og villedende om foreldreveiledning. Message posted to https://psykologisk.no/2020/02/forvirrende-og-villedende-om-foreldreveiledning/#_ENREF_8

Brante, T. (2011). Professions as Science-Based Occupations. Professions and Professionalism, 1(1).

https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.v1i1.147

Brante, T., Johnsson, E., Olofsson, G., & Svensson, L. G. (2015). Professionerna i kunskapssamhället : en jämförande studie av svenska professioner. Stockholm: Liber.

Bratberg, Ø. (2017). Tekstanalyse for samfunnsvitere (2nd ed.). Oslo: Cappelen Damm akademisk.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Breit, E., Andreassen, T. A., & Salomon, R. H. (2016). Modification of public policies by street-level organisations: An institutional work perspective. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 709-728.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279416000246

Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D., White, S., & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: Identifying the informal logics of risk management in children's statutory services. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1046-1064.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq011

Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Thompson, K., . . . Davey, D. (2009). Performing 'initial assessment': Identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children's services. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 352-370.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn162

Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000a). The contemporary expansion of standardization. In N. Brunsson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 1-17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256952.003.0001

Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2000b). A world of standards. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.17159/2221-4070/2016/v5i2a1

Bråten, B., & Sønsterudbråten, S. (2016). Foreldreveiledning - virker det? : En kunnskapsstatus. FAFO-rapport 2016:29 (Vol. 2016:29). Oslo: Fafo.

Bufdir. (2020a). Digibarnevern: Leveransene. Retrieved from https://bufdir.no/prosjekter/digibarnevern/leveransene/

Bufdir. (2020b). Tilskudd: Utlysning: Utprøving av grunnmodell for hjelpetiltak i barnevernstjenester. Retrieved from https://bufdir.no/Tilskudd/Aktuelt/utlysning_utproving_av_grunnmodell_for_hjelpetiltak_i_barnevernstjenester/

Bufdir. (2020c). Tilskuddsordning: Foreldrestøttende tiltak i kommunene. Retrieved from https://bufdir.no/Tilskudd/Soke_om_tilskudd/Barn_og_ungdom/Foreldrestottende_tiltak_i_kommunene/

Bufdir. (2020d). Årsrapport 2019 Barne-, ungdoms- og familiedirektoratet. Retrieved from https://bufdir.no/globalassets/global/nbbf/bufdir/arsrapport_201 9_barne_ungdoms_og_familiedirektoratet_oppslag.pdf

Bufdir. (2021). Barnevernsstatistikk. Retrieved from https://bufdir.no/Statistikk_og_analyse/Barnevern/

Burton, J., & van den Broek, D. (2009). Accountable and Countable: Information Management Systems and the Bureaucratization of Social Work. The British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1326- 1342.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn027

Cassidy, J., Brett, B. E., Gross, J. T., Stern, J. A., Martin, D. R., Mohr, J. J., & Woodhouse, S. S. (2017). Circle of Security-Parenting: A randomized controlled trial in Head Start. Development and Psychopathology, 29(2), 651-673.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579417000244

Cassidy, J., Woodhouse, S. S., Sherman, L. J., Stupica, B., & Lejuez, C. (2011). Enhancing infant attachment security: An examination of treatment efficacy and differential susceptibility. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 131-148.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000696

Circle of Security International. (2019). Circle of Security International, Trainers. Retrieved from https://www.circleofsecurityinternational.com/about/trainers/

Cloutier, C., Denis, J.-L., Langley, A., & Lamothe, L. (2015). Agency at the managerial interface: public sector reform as institutional work. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 259-276.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muv009

Cooper, D. A., & Coyne, J. (2020). Does knowing translate to doing? Practitioners' experiences of Circle of Security-Parenting (COS- P) training and implementation. Infant Mental Health Journal, 41(3), 393-410.

https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21852

Cooper, D. J., & Robson, K. (2006). Accounting, professions and regulation: Locating the sites of professionalization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4-5), 415-444.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2006.03.003

Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Foust, R., Vaithianathan, R., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (2017). Risk assessment and decision making in child protective services: Predictive risk modeling in context. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 291-298.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.027

Delyser, D. (2001). "Do you Really Live Here?" Thoughts on Insider Research. Geographical Review, 91(1-2), 441-453.

https://doi.org/10.2307/3250847

Djupvik, A. R., Pithouse, A., Myklebust, V., Rees, A., Ekeland, T.-J., & Brookfield, C. (2019). New public management and practitioner autonomy in children's services in Norway and Wales: views from the frontline. European Journal of Social Work, 1-13.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2019.1693338

Drozd, F., Slinning, K., Nielsen, B., & Høstmælingen, A. (2020, 5 February). Re: Foreldreveiledning - Hva virker for hvem? Message posted to https://psykologisk.no/2020/02/forvirrende- og-villedende-om foreldreveiledning/#_ENREF_8

Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. London: Duckworth.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Dhaw, L. L. (2001). Participant observation and fieldnotes. In P. Atkinson (Ed.), Handbook of ethnography (pp. 352-368). London: Sage.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608337.n24

Evans, T. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. New York: Routledge.

Evans, T., & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871-895.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch106

Evans, T., & Hupe, P. L. (2020). Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19566-3

Evetts, J. (2003). The Sociological Analysis of Professionalism: Occupational Change in the Modern World. International Sociology, 18(2), 395-415.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580903018002005

Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8(2), 247-266.

https://doi.org/10.1163/156913309X421655

Evetts, J. (2011). A new professionalism? Challenges and opportunities. Current Sociology, 59(4), 406-422. Retrieved from http://csi.sagepub.com/content/59/4/406.full.pdf

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392111402585

Evetts, J. (2013). Professionalism: Value and ideology. 61(5-6), 778-796.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479316

Fantl, J. (2017). "Knowledge how". In N. Z. Edward (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/knowledge-how/

Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K., & White, S. (2018). Protecting children : a social model. Briston: Policy Press.

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0008

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0004

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv4rfrnc.12

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0003

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0002

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0001

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv4rfrnc.11

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv4rfrnc

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0006

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0005

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv4rfrnc.14

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv4rfrnc.13

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0007

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.001.0001

https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447332732.003.0009

https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv4rfrnc.15

Fluke, J. D., López López, M., Benbenishty, R., Knorth, E. J., & Baumann, D. J. (2020). Advancing the field of decision-making and judgments in child welfare and protection. In J. D. Fluke, M. López López, R. Benbenishty, E. J. Knorth, & D. J. Baumann (Eds.), Decision-Making and Judgment in Child Welfare and Protection (pp. 301-317). New York: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190059538.003.0014

Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism : the third logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. The Social Science Journal, 28(2), 175-187.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(91)90003-M

Gambrill, E. (2016). Is social work evidence-based? Does saying so make it so? Ongoing challenges in integrating research, practice and policy. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(sup1), S110-S125.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1174642

du Gay, P., & Pedersen, K. Z. (2020). Discretion and bureaucracy. In T. Evans & P. L. Hupe (Eds.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom (pp. 221-236). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19566-3_15

Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12(3), 452-476.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731502012003007

Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & Skivenes, M. (2011). Child protection systems : international trends and orientations. New York: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.001.0001

Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: are we 'just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes'? Child & Family Social Work, 16(4), 412-421.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00756.x

Gillingham, P. (2019). Can Predictive Algorithms Assist Decision- Making in Social Work with Children and Families? Child Abuse Review, 28(2), 114-126.

https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2547

Gillingham, P., Harnett, P., Healy, K., Lynch, D., & Tower, M. (2017). Decision making in child and family welfare: The role of tools and practice frameworks. Children Australia, 42(1), 49-56.

https://doi.org/10.1017/cha.2016.51

Gillingham, P., & Humphreys, C. (2009). Child protection practitioners and decision-making tools: Observations and reflections from the front line. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2598-2616.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp155

Graneheim, U. H., Lindgren, B.-M., & Lundman, B. (2017). Methodological challenges in qualitative content analysis: A discussion paper. Nurse Education Today, 56, 29-34.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.06.002

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Grimen, H. (2008). Profesjon og kunnskap. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Grimen, H. (2009). Debatten om evidensbasering - noen utfordringer. In L. I. Terum & H. Grimen (Eds.), Evidensbasert profesjonsutøvelse. Oslo: Abstrakt.

Grimen, H., & Molander, A. (2008). Profesjon og skjønn. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Gümüscü, A., Nygren, L., & Khoo, E. (2020). Social work and the management of complexity in Swedish child welfare services. Nordic Social Work Research, 10(3), 257-269.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2018.1542336

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Feltmetodikk (2nd ed.). Oslo: Ad Notam Gyldendal.

Healy, K., & Meagher, G. (2004). The reprofessionalization of social work: Collaborative approaches for achieving professional recognition. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(2), 243-260.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch024

Hjelmar, U., & Møller, A. M. (2016). From knowledge to action: the potentials of knowledge portals. Nordic Social Work Research, 6(2), 126-137.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2015.1109542

Hoffman, K. T., Marvin, R. S., Cooper, G., & Powell, B. (2006). Changing toddlers' and preschoolers' attachment classifications: the Circle of Security intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(6), 1017.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.6.1017

Høybye-Mortensen, M. (2015). Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworkers' room for discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(2), 600-615.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct144

Huber, A., Hawkins, E., & Cooper, G. (2018). Circle of Security. In J. Lebow, A. Chambers, & D. C. Breunlin (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Couple and Family Therapy (pp. 1-6). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_845-1

Jacobsson, B. (2000). Standardization and expert knowledge. In N. Brunsson & B. Jacobsson (Eds.), A world of standards (pp. 40- 49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199256952.003.0003

Jensen, I. B. (2021). Ways of Seeing Children: Perspectives of Social Workers in Chile and Norway. (PhD thesis). University of Stavanger, Stavanger.

https://doi.org/10.31265/usps.84

Jensen, I. B., Studsrød, I., & Ellingsen, I. T. (2019). Child protection social workers' constructions of children and childhood: An integrative review. Child & Family Social Work, 25(S1), 83-96.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12720

Karvinen-Niinikoski, S. (2205). Research orientation and expertise in social work-challenges for social work education. European Journal of Social Work, 8 (3), 256-271.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450500210756

Kjær, A.-K. B. (2019). Risikovurderinger i barnevernet - hva innebærer det og når trengs det? Tidsskrift for familierett, arverett og barnevernrettslige spørsmål, 17(2), 131-149.

https://doi.org/10.18261/issn.0809-9553-2019-02-03

Kriz, K., & Skivenes, M. (201 ). Systemic differences in views on risk: A comparative case vignette study of risk assessment in England, Norway and the United States (California). Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1862-1870.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.001

Kriz, K., & Skivenes, M. (2014). Street-level policy aims of child welfare workers in England, Norway and the United States: An exploratory study. Children and Youth Services Review, 40, 71- 78.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.02.014

Kvello, Ø. (2015). Barn i risiko : skadelige omsorgssituasjoner (2nd ed.). Oslo: Gyldendal akademisk.

Lampland, M., & Star, S. L. (2009). Standards and their stories : how quantifying, classifying, and formalizing practices shape everyday life. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Lauritzen, C., Vis, S. A., Havnen, K. J. S., & Fossum, S. (2017). Barnevernets undersøkelsesarbeid - Evaluering av Kvellomalen Delrapport 2. Tromsø: RKBU Nord.

Lawrence, T., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2011). Institutional work: Refocusing institutional studies of organization. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20(1), 52-58.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610387222

Léveillé, S., & Chamberland, C. (2010). Toward a general model for child welfare and protection services: A meta-evaluation of international experiences regarding the adoption of the Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families (FACNF). Children and Youth Services Review, 32(7), 929-944.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.009

Levin, I. (2021). Hva er sosialt arbeid (2nd ed. Vol. 7). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy : dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded edition). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

López López, M., & Benbenishty, R. (2020). Lessons Learned from International Studies on Child Protection Decision Making Employing the Model of Judgments and Decisions Processes in Context (JUDPIC). In J. D. Fluke, M. López López, R. Benbenishty, E. J. Knorth, & D. J. Baumann (Eds.), Decision- Making and Judgment in Child Welfare and Protection (pp. 136- 148). New York: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190059538.003.0006

Martin, G. P., & Williams, O. (2019). Evidence and service delivery. In A. Boaz, H. T. O. Davies, A. Fraser, & S. M. Nutley (Eds.), What works now? : evidence informed policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.

https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07210

Matscheck, D., & Berg Eklundh, L. (2015). Does BBIC make a difference? Structured assessment of child protection and support. Nordic Social Work Research, 5(3), 193-211.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2014.986749

Maxwell, A.-M., McMahon, C., Huber, A., Hawkins, E., & Reay, R. E. (2020). Addressing the Evidence Gap: Protocol for an Effectiveness Study of Circle of Security Parenting, an Attachment-Based Intervention. Frontiers in Global Women's Health, 1(10).

https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2020.575752

Mercer, J. (2014). Examining Circle of Security™: A Review of Research and Theory. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(3), 382-392.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514536620

Molander, A. (2016). Discretion in the welfare state : social rights and professional judgment (Vol. 129). Oxon, UK: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315450483

Molander, A., Grimen, H., & Eriksen, E. O. (2012). Professional discretion and accountability in the welfare state. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 29(3), 214-230.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2012.00564.x

Molander, A., & Terum, L. I. (2008). Profesjonsstudier - en introduksjon. In A. Molander & L. I. Terum (Eds.), Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Møller, A. M. (2018). Organizing knowledge and decision-making in street-level professional practice: A practice-based study of Danish child protective services. Frederiksberg: SL Grafik.

Møller, A. M., Elvebakken, K. T., & Hansen, H. F. (2019). Using evidence in Scandinavia. In A. Boaz, H. T. O. Davies, A. Fraser, & S. M. Nutley (Eds.), What works now? : Evidence informed policy and practice. Bristol: Policy Press.

Montin, S. (2015). Från tilltrobaserad till misstrobaserad styrning. Nordisk Administrativt Tidsskrift, 92(1), 58-75.

Mothander, P. R., & Neander, K. (2017). Trygghetscirkeln som stöd till späd-och småbarnsfamiljer-användbarhet och effekter. Socialmedicinsk tidskrift, 94(4), 426-436.

Munro, E. (1998). Improving Social Workers' Knowledge Base in Child Protection Work. The British Journal of Social Work, 28(1), 89-105.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011320

Munro, E. (2004a). The impact of audit on social work practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(8), 1075-1095.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch130

Munro, E. (2004b). A simpler way to understand the results of risk assessment instruments. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(9),873-883.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.026

Munro, E. (2010). Learning to Reduce Risk in Child Protection. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1135-1151.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq024

Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report, a child-centered system (Vol. 8062). London: Department of Education.

Munro, E. (2019). Decision-making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture. Child & Family Social Work 24(1), 123-130.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12589

Munro, E. (2020). Effective child protection (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Munro, E., Cartwright, N., Hardie, J., & Montuschi, E. (2017). Improving child safety: deliberation, judgement and empirical research. Durham: Centre for Humanities Engaging Science and Society (CHESS).

Munro, E., & Hardie, J. (2018). Why We Should Stop Talking About Objectivity and Subjectivity in Social Work. The British Journal of Social Work, 49(2), 411-427.

https://doi.org/10.1093/social/bcy054

Muzio, D., Brock, D. M., & Suddaby, R. (2013). Professions and Institutional Change: Towards an Institutionalist Sociology of the Professions. Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 699-721.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12030

United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.asp x

Nielsen, B., Oddli, H. W., Slinning, K., & Drozd, F. (2020). Implementation of attachment-based interventions in mental health and social welfare services: Therapist's experiences from the Circle of Security-Virginia Family intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104550. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104550

Noordegraaf, M. (2013). Reconfiguring professional work: Changing forms of professionalism in public services. Administration & Society, 0095399713509242.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104550

Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Public Management: Performance, Professionalism and Politics: London: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-49644-7_5

Parton, N., & Berridge, D. (2011). Child Protection in England. In N. Gilbert, N. Parton, & M. Skivenes (Eds.), Child protection systems: international trends and orientations (pp. 66-88). New York: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.003.0004

Polanyi, M., & Sen, A. (2009 [1966]). The tacit dimension: Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ponnert, L., & Svensson, K. (2016). Standardisation-the end of professional discretion? European Journal of Social Work, 19(3- 4), 586-599.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1074551

Postholm, M. B. (2010). Kvalitativ metode : en innføring med fokus på fenomenologi, etnografi og kasusstudier (2nd ed.). Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Powell, B., Cooper, G., Hoffman, K., & Marvin, B. (2014). The circle of security intervention: Enhancing attachment in early parent- child relationships. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Power, M. (2007). Organized uncertainty : designing a world of risk management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Prop.84L. (2019-2020). Prop. 84 L (2019-2020): Endringer i barnevernloven (samtaleprosess, årlig tilstandsrapportering mv.): Proposisjon til stortinget (forslag til lovvedtak). Oslo: Det kongelige barne- og familiedepartement.

Risholm Mothander, P., Furmark, C., & Neander, K. (2018). Adding "Circle of Security - Parenting" to treatment as usual in three Swedish infant mental health clinics. Effects on parents' internal representations and quality of parent-infant interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 262-272.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12419

RKBU-Nord. (2021). Ungsinn Tidsskrift for virksomme tiltak for barn og unge. Retrieved from https://ungsinn.no/tiltak/

Røvik, K. A. (2007). Trender og translasjoner : ideer som former det 21. århundrets organisasjon. Oslo: Universitetsforl.

Schatzki, T. R. (2001a). Introduction, Practice theory. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 1-15). London: Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2001b). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, & E. von Savigny (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 42-55). London: Routledge.

Schatzki, T. R. (2002). The site of the social : a philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9780271023717

Schatzki, T. R. (2019). On plural actions. In A. Buch & T. R. Schatzki (Eds.), Routledge studies in contemporary philosophy. Questions of practice in philosophy and social theory (Vol. 111, pp. 49-64).

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351184854-4

Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury.

Skillmark, M. (2018). Uppdrag standardisering : införande och användning av manualbaserade utrednings- och bedömningsverktyg i socialtjänsten. (Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary). Kalmar: Linnaeus University Press. Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-39162 DiVA database.

Skillmark, M., & Denvall, V. (2018). The standardizers: social workers' role when implementing assessment tools in the Swedish social services. Nordic Social Work Research, 8(1), 88-99.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2017.1309678

Skillmark, M., & Oscarsson, L. (2020). Applying standardisation tools in social work practice from the perspectives of social workers, managers, and politicians: a Swedish case study. European Journal of Social Work, 23(2), 265-276.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1540409

Skivenes, M. (2011). Norway: Toward a child-centric perspective. In N. Gilbert, N. Parton, & M. Skivenes (Eds.), Child protection systems : international trends and orientations. New York: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199793358.003.0008

Skivenes, M., & Søvig, K. H. (2017). Norway: Child welfare decision- making in cases of removal of children. In K. Burns, T. Pösö, & M. Skivenes (Eds.), Child welfare removals by the state : a cross- country analysis of decision-making systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190459567.003.0003

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stanley, T. (2013). 'Our tariff will rise': Risk, probabilities and child protection. Health, Risk and Society, 15(1), 67-83.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2012.753416

Studsrød, I., Ellingsen, I. T., Guzmán, C. M., & Espinoza, S. E. M. (2018). Conceptualisations of Family and Social Work Family Practice in Chile, Mexico and Norway. Social Policy and Society, 17(4), 637-649.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746418000234

Sturmberg, J. P., & Martin, C. (2013). Handbook of Systems and Complexity in Health.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4998-0

Sørensen, K. M. (2016). Skemaernes betydning for den børnefaglige undersøgelse. Fontene Forskning(2), 4-15.

Sørensen, K. M. (2018). A comparative study of the use of different risk- assessment models in Danish municipalities. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(1), 195-214.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx030

Sørensen, K. M. (2019). The impact of political guidelines on participation of children and families' network in the risk assessment process. Nordic Social Work Research, 9(3), 250- 261.

https://doi.org/10.1080/2156857X.2018.1518814

Thoburn, J. (2010). Achieving safety, stability and belonging for children in out-of-home care: The search for 'what works' acorss national boundaries. International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 13(1), 34-49. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/record/display.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85055407863&origin=inward

Thompson, N. (2016). The professional social worker: Meeting the challenge. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.

Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (2003). The gold standard. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Timmermans, S., & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 69-89.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629

Vagli, Å. (2009). Behind closed doors : exploring the institutional logic of child protection work. Bergen: University of Bergen.

Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100- 110.

https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v6n5p100

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.

https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Vis, S. A., Christiansen, Ø., Havnen, K. J. S., Lauritzen, C., Iversen, A. C., & Tjelflaat, T. (2020). Barnevernets undersøkelsesarbeid-fra bekymring til beslutning. Samlede resultater og anbefalinger. Tromsø: UiT Norges Arktiske Universitet.

Vis, S. A., Lauritzen, C., & Fossum, S. (2019). Systematic approaches to assessment in child protection investigations: A literature review. International Social Work, 1-16. doi:https://doi.org.10.1177/0020872819828333

Vis, S. A., Storvold, A., Skilbred, D., Christiansen, Ø., & Andersen, A. (2015). Statusrapport om barnevernets undersøkelsesarbeid - høsten 2014. Tromsø: RKBU Nord. Retrieved from https://www.bufdir.no/global/RKBU_Nord_Statusrapport_om_ barnevernets_undersokelsesarbeid.pdf

Wallander, L., & Molander, A. (2014). Disentangling Professional Discretion : A Conceptual and Methodological Approach. Professions and Professionalism, 3(4), 1-19.

https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.808

Webb, S. A. (2006). Social Work in a Risk Society: Social and Political Perspectives. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-21442-2

Wesseltoft-Rao, N., Holt, T., & Helland, M. (2017). Gruppetiltak og kurs for foreldre: Norsk praksis, erfaringer og effektevalueringer. Oslo: Folkehelseinstituttet. Retrieved from https://www.fhi.no/publ/2017/gruppetiltak-for-foreldre.--norsk- praksis-erfaringer-og-effektevalueringer/

White, S., Hall, C., & Peckover, S. (2008). The descriptive tyranny of the common assessment framework: Technologies of categorization and professional practice in child welfare. The British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1197-1217.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcn053

Wike, T. L., Bledsoe, S. E., Manuel, J. I., Despard, M., Johnson, L. V., Bellamy, J. L., & Killian-Farrell, C. (2014). Evidence-based practice in social work: Challenges and opportunities for clinicians and organizations. Clinical Social Work Journal, 42(2), 161-170.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0492-3

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915480.n48

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473915480.n38

Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street : public service and moral agency. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674981423

Aarons, G., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. (2011). Advancing a Conceptual Model of Evidence-Based Practice Implementation in Public Service Sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4-23.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7

Cover for Standardised practice in Norwegian child welfare services: How standardisation influences professional practice in child welfare services
Published
November 11, 2021