The primary aim of this study is to summarise research findings about the use of assessment frameworks, that is, structured models that guide information collection and decision making in child protection services, by reviewing the literature. The research review method consisted of identification, selection, coding, categorisation and summary of publications on child protection investigative work. The results indicated that there is some documentation showing that the use of frameworks leads to more information being gathered, a greater focus on the needs of the child and increased involvement of the child during the investigation. One side effect is that the investigative work becomes more extensive and time-consuming.
ÅngmanI. (2009) Gör BBIC Skillnad? En uppföljning av kvaliteten i socialtjänstens utredningar av barn i Örebroregionen-Barns Behov I Centrum [Does BBIC make a difference? A study of the quality in social services assessment of children i the Örebro region]. Örebro: Fou Välfärd.
2.
BartelinkC.Van YperenT.A.Ten BergeI.J. (2014) ‘Agreement on Child Maltreatment Decisions: A Nonrandomized Study on the Effects of Structured Decision-Making’, Child Youth Care Forum43: 639.
3.
BartelinkC.Van YperenT.A.Ten BergeI.J. (2015) ‘Deciding on Child Maltreatment: A Literature Review on Methods that Improve Decision-Making’, Child Abuse and Neglect49: 142–53.
4.
BuckleyH.WhelanS.MurphyC.HorwathJ. (2007) ‘Using an Assessment Framework: Outcomes from a Pilot Study’, Journal of Children’s Services2(1): 37–47.
5.
De KwaadstenietL.BartelinkC.WittemanC.Ten BergeI.Van YperenT. (2013) ‘Improved Decision Making about Suspected Child Maltreatment: Results of Structuring the Decision Process’, Children and Youth Services Review35(2): 347–52.
6.
Deloitte Consulting (2014) Evaluering af ICS – Integrated Children’s System [Evaluation of ICS-Integrated Children’s System.]. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.
7.
FosterK.A.StiffmanA.R. (2009) ‘Child Welfare Workers’ Adoption of Decision Support Technology’, Journal of Technology in Human Services27(2): 106–26.
8.
FranssonI.SindtL. (2010) ‘Behandlares syn på BBIC: Rättssäkerhet, delaktighet och att få sin röst hörd [Case Workers’ Views on BBIC: Rule of Law, Participation and Being Heard]’, BA thesis, School of Law, Psychology and Social Work, Örebro University, Örebro.
9.
GillinghamP. (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 Work16(4): 412–21.
10.
GillinghamP.HumphreysC. (2010) ‘Child Protection Practitioners and Decision-Making Tools: Observations and Reflections from the Front Line’, British Journal of Social Work40(8): 2598–616.
11.
GladhM.PalmA.B. (2011) Med barnet eller blanketter i centrum?: uppföljning av handläggningssystemet barns behov i centrum (BBIC) i nordvästra Stockholm [The Child or the Templates in Focus? Follow Up of the Assessment Framework BBICi North-West Stockholm]. Sollentuna: Fou Nordväst.
12.
HarrisN. (2011) ‘Does Responsive Regulation Offer an Alternative? Questioning the Role of Formalistic Assessment in Child Protection Investigations’, British Journal of Social Work41(7): 1383–403.
13.
HedlundM.LovenC. (2008) ‘Kritisk gransking av BBIC’s teori och av barnavårdsutredningar med respektive utan BBIC - Same but different [Investigation of child protection assessments with and without BBIC - Same but different]’, Örebro universitet, Akademin för juridik, psykologi och sosialt arbete.
14.
HelmD. (2011) ‘Judgements or Assumptions? The Role of Analysis in Assessing Children and Young People’s Needs’, British Journal of Social Work41(5): 894–911.
15.
Helsetilsynet [Norwegian Board of Health Supervision] (2012) ‘Oppsummering Av Landsomfattende Tilsyn I 2011 Med Kommunalt Barnevern – Undersøkelse Og Evaluering [Summary of National Supervision of Municipal Child Protection Services – Investigations and Evaluations]’, Helsetilsynet report no. 2-2012.
16.
Helsetilsynet [Norwegian Board of Health Supervision] (2017) ‘Bekymring i skuffen – oppsummering av landsomfattende tilsyn i 2015 og 2016 med barnevernets arbeid med meldinger og tilbakemelding til den som har meldt [Concerns in the File Drawer – Summary of National Supervision in 2015 and 2016 Regarding Child Protection Services Handling of Referrals and Responses to the Referrer]’, Helsetilsynet, Report no. 1, March 2017.
17.
Høybye-MortensenM. (2013) ‘Decision-Making Tools and Their Influence on Caseworkers’ Room for Discretion’, British Journal of Social Work45: 600–15.
18.
HultmanE.AlmC.CederborgA.C.Fälth MagnussonK. (2013) ‘Vulnerable Children’s Health as Described in Investigations of Reported Children’, Child & Family Social Work18(2): 117–28.
19.
HultmanE.CederborgA.C.MagnussonK.F. (2015) ‘Social Workers’ Assessments of Children’s Health When Arguing for Children’s Needs’, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal32(4): 301–8.
20.
KvelloØ. (2017) Barn I Risiko [Children at Risk]. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
21.
LauritzenC.VisS.A.HavnenK.J.S., et al. (2017) Evaluering av Kvellomalen [Evaluation of the Norwegian assessment framework - Kvellomalen] Rapport No 2. Tromsø: RKBU- Nord.
22.
LéveilléS.ChamberlandC. (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’, Children and Youth Review32: 929–44.
23.
NethercottK. (2016) ‘The Common Assessment Framework Form 9 Years On: A Creative Process’, Child and Family Social Work22: 751–76.
24.
Riksrevisjonen [Norwegian General Auditor] (2012) ‘Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse om det kommunale barnevernet og bruken av statlige virkemidler’ [The General Auditors investigation of municipal child protection services], Dokument3: 15.
25.
SamsonsenV. (2016) ‘Assessment in Child Protection; A Comparative Study Norway – England’, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Social Science, University of Stavanger, Stavanger.
26.
SchlonskyA.WagnerD. (2005) ‘The Next Step: Integrating Actuarial Risk Assessment and Clinical Judgment into an Evidence-Based Practice Framework in CPS Case Management’, Children and Youth Services Review27: 409–27.
27.
SchwalbeC. (2008) ‘Strengthening the Integration of Actuarial Risk Assessment with Clinical Judgment in an Evidence-Based Practice Framework’, Children and Youth Services Review30: 1458–64.
28.
Socialstyrelsen [Danish National Board of Social Services] (2014) Barnets velfærd ICentrum – ICS Håndbog [Child Welfare in Focus – ICS Handbook]. Odense: Socialstyrelsen.
29.
Socialstyrelsen [Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare] (2007) ‘Social Barnavård I Förändring Slutrapport Från BBICprojektet [Social Child Care in Change – Final Report from the BBIC Project]’, report no. 2007-110-18.
30.
Socialstyrelsen [Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare] (2015) Grundbok I BBIC [Handbook for BBIC]. Falun: Socialstyrelsen.
31.
SvendsenT. (2012) Socialarbetares förhållningssätt till BBIC: ‘Det finns hur många fördelar som helst, bara man har tid’ [Social Workers’ Attitudes Towards BBIC: ‘There Are Infinite Number of Advantages, If You Just Have Time’]. Sollentuna: Fou Nordväst.
32.
United Kingdom Department of Health (2000) Framework for Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families. London: The Stationery Office.
33.
VikbergJ.WikströmA. (2010) ‘Barns behov I centrum efter implementeringen: En kvalitativ studie om barns delaktighet, barns bästa och BBIC som arbetsredskap utifrån fem socialsekreterares perspektiv [BBIC after the Implementation – A Qualitative Study of Child Participation and Childs Best Interests from the Perspective of Social Workers]’, BA thesis, Department of Social Work, Faculty of Human Sciences, Mid Sweden University, Sundsvall.
34.
VisS.A.StorvoldA.SkilbredD.T.Christiansen AndersenØ. (2015) ‘Statusrapport Om Barnevernets Undersøkelsesarbeid – Høsten 2014. [Progress Report on Child Protection Investigations in Norway 2014]’, May 2015, RKBU Nord, UiT – The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
