1. Montreal, Andreas Jud, Ph.D., Peter Voll January 19, 2008 Growing up protected? Swiss child protection and its children Realised with the aid of the Swiss National Science Foundation, Research Program 52: Childhood, Youth, and Intergenerational Relationships in a Changing Society

2. Slide2, January 19, 2011 Content 1.Introduction: child protection in Switzerland 2.Theory: decision making under uncertainty 3.The research project: design, methods 4.Results 5.Conclusions

3. Slide3, January 19, 2011 Some notes on Switzerland

4. Slide4, January 19, 2011 CP in Switzerland: Stakeholders Tutelary child protection Tutelary authorities, child protective services Voluntary services Mental health services, Family services and counselling Penal authorities Police forces, criminal courts, agencies of prosecution Specialized organizations Child protection teams, victim aid agencies, private specialized agencies

5. Slide5, January 19, 2011 CP in Switzerland: Legal basis Art 307Appropriate measures to protect the child Art 308 Educational assistance -Advice and practical support -Monitor access -Parental custody may be restricted accordingly Art 309 Determining paternity Art 310 Withdrawal of children from parental care Art 311/312Withdrawal of parental custody

6. Slide6, January 19, 2011 Frequency of child protection orders 2004

7. Slide7, January 19, 2011 Institutions and procedures

8. Slide8, January 19, 2011 Institutions and procedures

9. Slide9, January 19, 2011 Theory: decision-making under uncertainty -Two possibly conflicting objectives -the welfare of the child (his/her future development) -the parents’ rights -Incomplete information on -the future development of the child -conditions of action (esp. parental behaviour) -results of action  Decisions of services and authorities are -decisions under risk -based on evaluations of values/objectives and probabilities

10. Slide10, January 19, 2011 Methods -Analysis of dossiers opened from 1994 to 2002, stratified random sample within four different institutional settings (N=164) -Survey by mailed questionnaire chairpersons of tutelary authority and CP-Services (stratified random sample, N=399) -Case studies two interviews with parents, professionals and authority members, in the first 18 months of an order instituted in 2004 (8 cases)

11. Slide11, January 19, 2011 Survey Results: Whose risk?

12. Slide12, January 19, 2011 Survey Results: Risk and experience

13. Slide13, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Sampling Language / Type of authority GermanFrench Professional / Judicial„Stadt“„Ville“ Lay people / Administrative„Land“„Campagne“ 164 cases in four different Settings, stratified by legal base

14. Slide14, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Data Structure Professio- nals Parents Other Persons Situation / child Institution Orders Dossiers DocumentsEvents

15. Slide15, January 19, 2011 Analysis of Dossiers Sample: Demographics -89 boys and 75 girls -Mean age of 7 years for enactement of first child protection order -46% of children with one or both parents foreign nationals -At the time of referral 26% of children lived with both parents, 62% with a single parent and 12% (already) out-of-home

16. Slide16, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Results: Situations of endangerment weighted data

17. Slide17, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Results: Victim’s overt behaviour weighted data

18. Slide18, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Numbers of professionals involved A total of 3,089 professionals are mentionend in the dossiers on the 164 cases (M d = 15 professionals). The number of professionals is correlated with: - intrusiveness of child protection order - number of caregiver risks mentioned - number of victim‘s behavioural difficulties - the setting

19. Slide19, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Results: Growing up protected?

20. Slide20, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Results: Growing up protected?

21. Slide21, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Results: The work of removing a measure

22. Slide22, January 19, 2011 Analysis of dossiers Results: The larger picture? weighted data

23. Slide23, January 19, 2011 Conclusions 1.Professionals in different positions evaluate the same risk differently... 2.... according to the risk they run. 3.Talking about risk evaluation in child protection implies talking about the evaluator. 4.Decisions occur everywhere – they are as important at the end as they are at the beginning!

24. Slide24, January 19, 2011 Practice implications 1.Adequate experience for authority members should be guaranteed to reduce decision bias. 2.The coordination of the various professionals involved in child protection could be improved via case management. 3.The opportunities of fixed periodical reviews should be expanded to control duration of the child within the child protection system. 4.A unification of assessment and mandated services improves continuation of services and – not least – helps to preserve scarce ressources.

25. Slide25, January 19, 2011 The risk of removing a measure “The only thing you can be held responsible for [at the end], is not having continued” Authority, legal assistant of the board