Growing up protected? Swiss child protection and its children

1. 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. Content • Introduction: child protection in Switzerland • Theory: decision making under uncertainty • The research project: design, methods • Results • Conclusions

3. Some notes on Switzerland

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

5. CP in Switzerland: Legal basis Art 307 Appropriate 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 311/312 Withdrawal of parental custody

6. Frequency of child protection orders 2004

7. Institutions and procedures

8. Institutions and procedures

9. 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. Methods • Analysis of dossiersopened from 1994 to 2002, stratified random sample within four different institutional settings (N=164) • Survey by mailed questionnairechairpersons of tutelary authority and CP-Services (stratified random sample, N=399) • Case studiestwo interviews with parents, professionals and authority members, in the first 18 months of an order instituted in 2004 (8 cases)

11. SurveyResults:Whose risk?

12. SurveyResults:Risk and experience

13. Analysis of dossiersSampling 164 cases in four different Settings, stratified by legal base

14. Orders Documents Events Parents Situation / child Professio-nals Other Persons Institution Dossiers Analysis of dossiersData Structure

15. Analysis of DossiersSample: 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. Analysis of dossiers Results: Situations of endangerment weighted data

17. Analysis of dossiersNumbers of professionals involved A total of 3,089 professionals are mentionend in the dossiers on the 164 cases (Md= 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

18. Analysis of dossiersResults: Growing up protected?

19. Analysis of dossiersResults: Growing up protected?

20. Analysis of dossiersResults: The work of removing a measure

21. Conclusions • Professionals in different positions evaluate the same risk differently ... • ... according to the risk they run. • Talking about risk evaluation in child protection implies talking about the evaluator. • Decisions occur everywhere – they are as important at the end as they are at the beginning!

22. 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