Listening to the child: Lessons from Estonia’s ‘Out of the Circle’ restorative practice model

Abstract

This practice paper draws on focus group interviews with Estonian child protection professionals implementing the Out of the Circle model, a restorative, trauma-informed, and child-centred approach to working with at-risk youth. The findings indicate that the model enhances meaningful youth participation by shifting young people’s role from passive recipients to active partners in decision-making, particularly through co-creation of personal plans and trusted-adult relationships. It also strengthens interprofessional collaboration by clarifying roles, improving communication, and fostering shared responsibility across sectors. However, implementation is constrained by limited time, uneven institutional support and inconsistent network engagement. These findings offer transferable insights for international child protection systems seeking more participatory and integrated responses to complex youth cases.

Introduction

In recent years, child protection systems worldwide have increasingly recognised the importance of interprofessional collaboration and meaningful child participation (Toros and Falch-Eriksen, 2025; Toros and Lehtme, 2022). At the same time, the growing complexity of children’s and young people’s behavioural challenges has exposed the limitations of single-sector interventions. Many cases now span multiple domains – such as welfare, education, and justice – highlighting the need for integrated approaches that transcend institutional boundaries and ensure that no young person is left without support at critical moments. In such situations, effective interprofessional collaboration and the active involvement of the child or young person become central to achieving positive outcomes (Estonian Social Insurance Board, 2025; Saia, 2022).

The need for collaboration arises from the fact that the problems faced by children or young people are often multifaceted, requiring a combination of knowledge, resources, and shared responsibility across sectors (Haapakorpi, 2020; Horwath and Morrison, 2007). Frost and Robinson (2007) emphasise the importance of early identification of children’s needs and risks, paired with timely intervention, to prevent more serious issues from developing. Equally essential is ensuring that the child’s voice is heard throughout this process – a principle at the heart of building both trust and meaningful engagement (Toros, 2021; Toros and Falch-Eriksen, 2025).

In Estonia, the principles of interprofessional collaboration and meaningful child participation have been embedded in an innovative model known as Ringist välja (‘Out of the Circle’ [O of C]), which supports at-risk youth through structured, restorative, and child-centred collaboration between professionals. In this Voices from Practice paper, we present and reflect on the core elements of the O of C model alongside insights from child protection professionals who play a frontline role in responding to complex and serious child welfare concerns, with a particular focus on building trust and amplifying the voices of children and young people. These professionals are responsible for making critical decisions about their safety, support needs, and long-term well-being. Their reflections provide valuable insight into how this structured and participatory model can facilitate interprofessional collaboration, foster trust-building with young people, and ensure that their voices are not only acknowledged but also meaningfully integrated into decision-making processes. This article takes the form of a practice reflection rather than a full empirical study, aiming to share key experiences and lessons learned from the Estonian context that may be relevant to practitioners internationally.

Out of the Circle model

The O of C model is applied in cases where a young person engages in repeated delinquent behaviour, but it also serves as a preventive intervention aimed at avoiding a downwards spiral. Originally developed by Finnish practitioners from Aseman Lapset ry, the O of C model is a multidisciplinary, youth-centred and trauma-informed approach rooted in restorative justice that brings together young people, their families, and professionals to provide consistent, trust-based, and personalised support (Aseman Lapset ry, 2025). Since its implementation in Estonia in 2020, the model has become a widely used approach in youth-focused interventions (Merila, 2025). Both the Finnish and Estonian versions are based on interprofessional teamwork, involving specialists already working with the young person who come together to create a comprehensive and tailored plan (Reile and Kruus, 2023).

A core strength of the model is that voluntary participation does not end with the young person’s formal presence at meetings – it entails meaningful involvement throughout the entire process. The model emphasises relationship-building, based on trust and equal partnership. The young person is not treated as a ‘problem’ but rather as an individual with potential and the capacity to take responsibility for their actions (Estonian Social Insurance Board, 2025). The significance of this model lies in its dual emphasis: on the one hand, it offers a structured response to the often fragmented nature of service provision for high-risk youth; on the other, it shifts professional practice towards the participation, dignity, and well-being of the young person. By embracing restorative and trauma-informed principles, O of C challenges traditional hierarchical structures in child protection and instead fosters relationships based on respect, continuity, and collaborative problem-solving.

The O of C process consists of three phases (Reile and Kruus, 2023). Preparation phase (2–4 weeks) includes an assessment of support needs and consultation with the network to confirm their readiness to participate. The young person’s risk level is determined through the PACT pre-assessment – a standardised tool that helps professionals gather and analyse information about a child in order to evaluate the child’s risk behaviour and the likelihood of committing offences. Consent from the young person and their parent or guardian is required before proceeding, after which the network is formally informed. Active phase (minimum 6 months) involves (1) network meeting: a first extended meeting where confidentiality is established, the ‘Iceberg’ method is used to explore underlying issues (briefly, it refers to identifying hidden factors beneath observable behaviour), and an initial action plan is drafted; (2) meeting with the young person: a smaller group meeting is held to introduce the model, build trust, and select a trusted adult to accompany the youth; (3) developing ‘My Plan’: the trusted person works one-on-one with the youth to co-create a personal plan with clear, realistic goals; (4) follow-ups and monitoring: regular check-ins, updates to the action plan, and shared evaluation of progress; (5) closure and celebration. When the goals are achieved, the case is closed with a joint review of progress, assessment of risk level, and planning of any continued support. The final, follow-up phase lasts a minimum of 6 months. During this period, a follow-up assessment is conducted to evaluate the youth’s situation and risk level, followed by a written summary.

The model’s effectiveness depends heavily on clear roles and responsibilities among professionals (Merila, 2024). For interprofessional collaboration to function smoothly, each participant must understand not only their own tasks but also the contributions of others. The model distinguishes four main roles: case coordinator (usually the child protection worker); note-taker (another network member involved in the meetings); network participants (specialists, the youth, and their parent or caregiver); trusted person (selected by the young person to support them throughout the process) (Reile and Kruus, 2023).

Practice context and reflections base

This paper draws on a qualitative study exploring child protection professionals’ experiences with the implementation of the O of C model in Estonia, with a particular focus on interprofessional collaboration and youth participation. A qualitative design was selected to capture practitioners’ lived experiences, professional interpretations, and reflections, which are central to understanding how the model functions in practice.

Using purposive sampling, invitations to participate in the study were sent via email to all eligible professionals (n = 26) who had completed national training in the O of C model and received implementation support from the national lead specialist. Eight practitioners from different municipalities volunteered to participate and provided written informed consent. The participants (seven women and one man) had between 2 and 40 years of professional experience in working with children and youth (average 13.5 years) and held professional qualifications ranging from applied higher education to master’s degrees.

Two focus group discussions were conducted online in March 2025, each lasting approximately 1.5–2 hours. The semi-structured format encouraged open discussion and reflection among participants on key themes, including interprofessional collaboration, the use of practical tools, and children’s participation in network meetings. All discussions were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and later transcribed verbatim. Identifying information was removed during transcription, and recordings were deleted after data verification. The analysis focused on what helps and hinders the implementation of the model, especially in relation to youth participation and collaboration across sectors. From these reflections, two central themes emerged and are discussed in the following sections: youth participation and interprofessional collaboration.

Reflections from the practitioners

Youth participation: From presence to partnership

Professionals shared that the O of C model places strong emphasis on ensuring that young people are not merely present in the process but are meaningfully engaged at every stage. Child protection professionals highlighted several ways in which the model shifts traditional power dynamics and fosters active youth participation. Professionals emphasised that participation under the O of C model goes beyond symbolic involvement, they outlined genuine involvement and shared decision-making. Young people are given the opportunity to contribute to decisions that affect their lives, particularly through the development of their personal plan and participation in network meetings: ‘The young person is not just sitting there; they are part of shaping the plan and the direction we take’ (Professional 6). When young people are trusted with agency and their perspectives are genuinely valued, their motivation to engage and take responsibility increases. It was observed that involvement fostered a sense of ownership, which in turn encouraged behavioural change and greater self-reflection: ‘When they are part of the solution, they also feel responsible for the outcome. It’s no longer just adults telling them what to do’ (Professional 5). Furthermore, the O of C model was believed to encourage professionals to shift their perspective – from seeing the child as a passive recipient of services to viewing them as an active subject with capabilities and resources. This respectful approach was described as transformative both for the professionals and the young person: ‘We don’t define them by their problems anymore. We ask what they are good at, what they want, and we build from there’ (Professional 3).

Professionals reflected on cases where young people with repeated offending histories were no longer in contact with the police after the implementation of the O of C model. In some cases, young people returned to school and were able to complete their education after years of repeated grade retention. For example, one participant (Professional 6) described a particularly illustrative case: ‘He is finishing school, and that is amazing, because he had repeated several grades before’. The participant explained that prior to the O of C process, the young person had been repeatedly involved in offending behaviour and had struggled to remain engaged in education. Through sustained participation in network meetings, the co-creation of his personal plan, and the support of a trusted adult, the young person gradually began to take ownership of his goals and actions. This case demonstrates how moving from mere presence to meaningful partnership can foster responsibility, educational engagement and long-term stability.

Professionals stressed that meaningful participation is only possible when the young person feels emotionally safe and is ready to engage – gradual trust-building and emotional readiness. The model supports this by creating space for relationship-building with a trusted adult and allowing participation to unfold at the young person’s pace: ‘You can’t rush it. Some young people need time before they can open up or take part actively. And that’s okay’ (Professional 2). Participation in the model is always voluntary, and the process is carefully designed to support psychological safety. Trust is not assumed – it is earned through consistent presence and respect for the young person’s boundaries and choices: ‘We make it clear that this is their process. Nothing is forced. That’s when they start to trust us’ (Professional 4).

Interprofessional collaboration: From fragmentation to shared responsibility

One of the strongest themes emerging from the professionals’ reflections was the model’s ability to facilitate effective collaboration between different sectors. The O of C model was seen as a catalyst for improved cooperation, clearer communication, and a shared sense of responsibility across disciplines. Participants emphasised that the model provides a consistent framework where the roles of each professional are explicitly defined. This clarity supports smoother coordination and helps avoid confusion or overlap in responsibilities: ‘Everyone knows their role – who leads, who supports, who documents. That makes the whole process more structured and less chaotic’ (Professional 4). The model was valued for enabling more open and regular communication across sectors. Rather than working in parallel or in silos, professionals described coming together around a shared plan and a common goal: ‘Before this, we worked side by side, but not really together. Now we actually talk to each other and coordinate’ (Professional 1). In addition, one participant highlighted how the structured format of the O of C meetings supported collaboration by creating predictable and safe spaces for professionals to engage: ‘When the meeting structure is clear, it feels easier for everyone to participate and speak openly’ (Professional 4).

One participant (Professional 2) described a case where a young person was simultaneously involved with child protection services, school support staff and the police. Prior to the use of the O of C model, professionals worked ‘side by side but not really together’, with limited information sharing and no shared action plan. After initiating the O of C process, a joint network meeting was organised, roles were clarified, and a shared action plan was developed. Regular follow-up meetings were held, allowing professionals to coordinate their actions and share responsibility. According to the participant, this significantly reduced duplication of work and strengthened collective accountability. This case illustrates how formalised structures and regular network meetings can transform fragmented professional practices into coordinated and shared responsibility.

Several participants described how the model fostered trust and shared responsibility not only with the young person and their family, but also among professionals. The feeling of shared ownership over the case encouraged collaboration and reduced the emotional burden often carried individually by child protection workers: ‘You feel like you’re not alone with the case. There’s a team, and we all contribute from our own angle’ (Professional 2).

Furthermore, professionals appreciated that the O of C model emphasises long-term engagement rather than one-off interventions. The shared process and joint responsibility were seen to create greater continuity for the young person and their family: ‘It’s not just one meeting. We stay involved over time, and that makes the support more stable and meaningful’ (Professional 5).

Professionals also described cases where collaboration within the network remained fragile. In one case (reported by Professional 6), key network members were unable to commit to regular meetings due to heavy workloads and organisational constraints. As a result, information sharing was inconsistent, and joint planning was delayed. Although the young person remained in contact with individual specialists, the lack of coordinated action limited the overall impact of the intervention. This case illustrates how insufficient institutional support and limited time resources can undermine interprofessional collaboration and continuity of support.

The model promotes an environment where the knowledge and perspective of each professional – be it social worker, police officer, youth worker, or psychologist – is valued. The importance of recognising each professional’s expertise was also emphasised. This mutual respect was viewed as key to building a functional and effective support network: ‘We all bring something different to the table, and that’s the strength. It’s no longer about whose perspective wins’ (Professional 6). This view was echoed by another participant, who noted: ‘When we sit at the same table with the same goal, it becomes easier to listen to each other and work as a team’ (Professional 1).

Implications for practice and international relevance

These reflections suggest that the O of C model places youth participation at the heart of intervention – not as a formality, but as a guiding principle throughout the process. In this respect, the model responds to a broader international challenge, as evidence shows that meaningful child participation remains uneven in everyday child protection decision-making, despite strong rights-based and policy commitments (Haarberg, 2024; Skauge and Storhaug, 2025; Tamutienė and Kirka, 2026). Research further suggests that participation is shaped by institutional constraints, professional orientations and relational conditions, rather than being automatically realised through policy alone (Jørgensen et al., 2025; Kosher and Katz, 2025).

Professionals described how the model upholds the child’s right to be heard in ways that are developmentally appropriate, empowering, and protective. At the same time, the model strengthens interprofessional collaboration by combining clear structure with flexibility and fostering a shared commitment to the young person’s well-being. This integrated approach helps bridge service gaps and promote more coherent, coordinated support. International research also recognises that interprofessional collaboration is essential in complex youth cases, yet persistent barriers such as role ambiguity, limited time and weak communication continue to challenge coordinated practice across sectors (Albuquerque et al., 2020; Frost and Robinson, 2007; Saia, 2022).

Despite its strengths, professionals identified several implementation challenges. Limited time, heavy workloads, and role ambiguity at times hindered the model’s continuity. Inconsistent institutional backing and uneven engagement from network members were also noted. These insights highlight the need for clearer role definitions, sustained organisational support, and ongoing training to ensure long-term success.

The O of C model offers several transferable lessons for international child protection systems. First, integrating restorative and trauma-informed principles fosters trust and meaningful engagement – not only as ethical imperatives but as effective practice. Meta-analytic evidence indicates that trauma-informed care interventions for children involved with the child welfare system can positively influence psychological and behavioural well-being (see Zhang et al., 2021). Second, clear structure and shared accountability improve cross-sector collaboration, with tools such as joint planning and standardised meeting formats helping to operationalise this process, as emphasised in interprofessional collaboration research (Frost and Robinson, 2007). Third, youth participation must be substantive, with systems actively creating space for young people to voice their views, influence decisions, and co-design their support plans. Recent Nordic research similarly stresses the importance of moving beyond symbolic involvement towards meaningful participation in everyday child protection practice (Skauge and Storhaug, 2025).

Ultimately, the findings highlight that building trust and amplifying youth voice requires both relational and structural support: time, appropriate tools, and institutional commitment. Estonia’s experience also highlights the value of piloting and gradual adaptation, enabling feedback and responsiveness to diverse local contexts. While rooted in one national setting, the O of C offers a promising example of how structured and participatory approaches can support more coherent responses and meaningful change, particularly as child protection systems face growing complexity and systemic constraints (Kosher and Katz, 2025; Storø et al., 2019; Tamutienė and Kirka, 2026). More specifically, the Estonian experience aligns with developments across Nordic–Baltic welfare-state contexts, where fragmented service provision and increasing youth complexity have prompted greater emphasis on coordinated and participatory multi-agency approaches (Häggman-Laitila et al., 2019; Storø et al., 2019). In this sense, the O of C model offers timely lessons for comparable welfare-state systems seeking more integrated and participatory responses to complex youth cases. The O of C model illustrates how meeting children’s and young people’s needs requires shared responsibility across sectors. In practice, the child protection professional acts as a coordinator, while schools, family support, and mental health services contribute to ensuring continuity of care and participation. This interprofessional approach aligns with wider evidence emphasising the need for integrated responses to complex child protection needs (Saia, 2022; Storø et al., 2019). While the model relies on multi-agency cooperation, it remains most directly rooted in the child protection sector, where professionals take the lead in coordinating support and facilitating restorative dialogue among all parties to promote children’s participation and safety. Overall, the O of C model demonstrates how structured participation and coordinated interprofessional responsibility can translate children’s rights into everyday child protection practice.